Külföldi torrent oldalak BTWorld Site blocking efforts could prove more ‘symbolic’ than prohibitive for keen internet

Site blocking efforts could prove more ‘symbolic’ than prohibitive for keen internet users​

YESTERDAY a federal judge handed down a ruling that will usher in an unprecedented site blocking regimen in Australia — but plenty of uncertainties still remain.

The verdict opens the door for rights holders to force internet service providers to block access to websites hosting illegal files or streams that breach copyright, something they are now expected to do en masse.

After a legal squabble over who should have to foot the bill for implementing site blocking infrastructure, the federal court placed the financial onus on the rights holders.The applicants seeking to have certain sites blocked will have to pay a fee to the telcos of $50 per domain.

But the internet — made up of a multitude of connected networks — is a virtually impossible thing to censor, particularly by the terms outlined yesterday.

The judge refused a request from rights holders that ISPs be required to ban new domains or IP addresses as they pop up, ensuring court oversight of the process.The problem is that file sharing sites are far more nimble than the courts system and it is rather easy for sites like The Pirate Bay to change their name and continue operating at a different location.

“This is largely a symbolic victory,” a trio of academics wrote in The Conversation following the verdict.
“This ruling will likely have limited impact on copyright infringement in Australia.”

For proponents of strict and enforceable copyright laws, the new site blocking powers are unquestionably a move in the right direction. Even reducing instances of illegal file sharing and streaming by a marginal amount by making it harder for your average punter to find illegal copies would be considered a victory.

If ISPs, at the behest of right holders, have success in maintaining comprehensive blocks on new and emerging domains, there are always other options though. Namely virtual private networks that disguise the location of your IP address.

Phil is the founder of Australian-based VPN service called Vanished VPN and says already he has noticed an uptick in customers to his service thanks to the impending site blocks.

“We’ve seen it already,” he said. “We’ve already seen customer numbers going up yesterday, so I think people are already looking at what they can do.”

It’s no surprise that the news of site blocking has changed consumer behaviour.

In the wake of the Dallas Buyers Club case in which rights holders sought the identity of Australians who illegally shared the film, top tier VPN service TorGuard showed a large spike in usage from Australia.

Phil said he is “confident” his service will be able to bypass blocks brought in by Australian telcos.
“We don’t know what the blocks are gonna look like in Australia but the technology that we have already works in terms of bypassing the country firewall in China and it also works for the blocks that are in place in the UK,” he told news.com.au.

While informed internet users may look for workarounds, experiences from overseas shows that site blocking will make a considerable dent in piracy. After ISPs in the UK were ordered to block access to 53 domains in November 2014, visits to the sites dropped by 90 per cent, resulting in a corresponding decline in piracy of 22 per cent, according to a study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.

It will be interesting to see how effective, and ultimately impactful, site blocking systems implemented by Australian telcos will be. It will no doubt require vigilant and aggressive oversight to make a real difference.

But many on social media yesterday seemed unconvinced by the significance of this new era we’re entering.