The Pirate Bay is being blocked again on Plusnet

disfroot · ‎28-04-2008

Quote from: AndyH
It's not a published order, but I would assume not based on previous court orders.

I think this
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/2058.html&query=eztv&method=bool...

may be it. It explictly mentions EZTV in para.57. Plusnet is not a directly named defendant in this action.

Quote from: AndyH
I don't think PN are in any position to ignore these court orders seeing as the holding company is named in the action. If they ignore them, they wil just end up with 6 figure legal bills.

I think you'd want a UK corporate law expert to pronounce on that. It isn't obvious to me.

disfroot · ‎28-04-2008

Quote from: ejs
Here's a screenshot from now, if you sort things out so that eztv.it resolves to 185.19.104.80 not .81

I don't see that page
If I use eztv.it (185.19.104.81), I get redirected to Facebook.com
If I use 185.19.104.80 I get the world-visible EZTV home page - not your UK-only page.
Seems a right old mess.

VileReynard · ‎01-09-2007

Quote

jeremy@HECTOR:~$ traceroute eztv.it 
traceroute to eztv.it (185.19.104.80), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  ROUTER (192.168.1.1)  2.919 ms  2.873 ms  2.846 ms
 2  lo0-central10.ptn-ag03.plus.net (195.166.128.192)  39.417 ms  39.433 ms  39.410 ms
 3  link-b-central10.ptn-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.138)  39.881 ms  39.865 ms  40.446 ms
 4  110.core.access.plus.net (212.159.0.110)  41.684 ms  41.660 ms  42.182 ms
 5  ae2.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.4)  41.574 ms  41.555 ms  42.095 ms
 6  teln.lon.portlane.net (195.66.225.159)  42.692 ms  40.712 ms  40.683 ms
 7  te-2-3.ams1.nl.portlane.net (80.67.4.158)  49.528 ms  16.125 ms  18.145 ms
 8  po13-10g.sto4.se.portlane.net (80.67.4.178)  42.222 ms  39.515 ms  39.494 ms
 9  xe-0-0-9-435-dcp-demarc.pe1.sto4.se.portlane.net (80.67.1.70)  41.833 ms  43.934 ms  46.422 ms
10  192.121.121.243 (192.121.121.243)  48.673 ms  50.624 ms  52.803 ms
11  192.121.86.242 (192.121.86.242)  55.109 ms  57.278 ms  59.254 ms
12  185.19.104.80 (185.19.104.80)  61.457 ms  63.455 ms  37.712 ms

"In The Beginning Was The Word, And The Word Was Aardvark."

Razer · ‎17-11-2012

Quote from: Oldjim
Just saw this http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/493565/20130723/eztv-yify-pirate-bay-blocked-uk-mpa.htm

Rather interesting to read from that article:

Quote
In March of this year, file-sharing sites KickassTorrents, H33T and Fenopy were also blocked by the High Court under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which grants the Court power to impose an injunction on any service which knowingly allows users to infringe copyright.

So that would be just about any ISP.

AndyH · ‎27-10-2012

The law states

Quote
The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.

so it looks like the claimants have to specify which ISPs.
I still think it would be unwise for PN (and other ISPs not mentioned) to ignore any court orders against blocking certain sites. High Court judges have determined these sites break the law, so all ISPs in the country should follow the court orders. It's not a question of censorship - and if anyone disagrees with the court orders, they can appeal them (at considerable expense and unlikely success).
In the interest of transparency, PN should state if they are blocking any specific sites. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing this.

VileReynard · ‎01-09-2007

There is probably a super-injunction banning them from publicly revealing what is censored.

"In The Beginning Was The Word, And The Word Was Aardvark."

Razer · ‎17-11-2012

Quote from: AndyH
I still think it would be unwise for PN (and other ISPs not mentioned) to ignore any court orders against blocking certain sites. High Court judges have determined these sites break the law, so all ISPs in the country should follow the court orders.

With respect, I think that's a very foolish point of view. In essence you are saying people or organisations should obey court orders not pertaining to them directly, just in case. Moreover, there is a lot to be said for the fallibility of any judge and judgement/order. These things are not set in stone and are subject to challenge - to whatever degree one may want to challenge.

bobpullen · ‎04-04-2007

Quote from: ejs
eztv.it was giving a special page for UK users or redirecting to torrentfreak earlier.
Google DNS eztv.it = 185.19.104.80 (works)
Plusnet DNS eztv.it = 185.19.104.81 (timeout)
BT DNS (194.72.6.57) eztv.it = 62.239.4.146 (minimal site blocked webpage)

Also worth noting that OpenDNS resolves to the 81 address too.

C:\Windows\System32>nslookup eztv.it 208.67.222.222
Server:  resolver1.opendns.com
Address:  208.67.222.222
Non-authoritative answer:
Name:    eztv.it
Address:  185.19.104.81

Worth a read of this. I know when I tried a week or two back I was getting an eztv.it page saying I was based in the UK, that access had been blocked and suggesting a list of proxies.

Quote from: disfroot
If I use eztv.it (185.19.104.81), I get redirected to Facebook.com

No idea why your requests are redirecting to Facebook but I very much doubt what you're seeing is to do with anything our side.
There's no update on the Pirate Bay situation following Matt's post earlier in the week.

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Product Team
If I've been helpful then please give thanks ⤵

disfroot · ‎28-04-2008

Quote from: Bob

No idea why your requests are redirecting to Facebook but I very much doubt what you're seeing is to do with anything our side.

this may have something to do with it (via Slashdot)
http://torrentfreak.com/skys-court-ordered-piracy-filter-blocks-torrentfreak-130809/
it appears that, in an attempt to comply with the UK courts, eztv have inadvertently exposed a problem with the technology being used to censor their web-site, resulting in arbitrary other web-sites being blocked by one or more UK ISPs for millions of their hapless customers.

bobpullen · ‎04-04-2007

Just thought the same myself after reading this.

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Product Team
If I've been helpful then please give thanks ⤵

disfroot · ‎28-04-2008

Quote from: vilefoxdemonofdoom
There is probably a super-injunction banning them from publicly revealing what is censored.

In which case, Hon Mr Justice Arnold of the High Court has broken it - vide para. 57 of [2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch)

Quote
Secondly, on 25 June 2013 Mann J granted orders under section 97A concerning a website known as EZTV .

and we are also in contempt of court by simply discussing the website - which is silly.
The delay in publication of the judgement by Mann J of 25 June 2013 mentioned by Mr Justice Arnold is, however, rather troubling.

disfroot · ‎28-04-2008

Quote from: AndyH
High Court judges have determined these sites break the law, so all ISPs in the country should follow the court orders.

Whoa there ! A decision in the High Court (Injunction) may set a precedent, but it does not extend in scope beyond the named defendants.
The decision may be flawed; it may be overturned on appeal. Given that this may occur, it is wise to limit the scope of the action as narrowly as possible. In addition, the claimant has to produce evidence in respect of all the named defendants. If no evidence is presented, then no case has been proven. That seems pretty basic stuff to me.

ejs · ‎10-06-2010

Regarding the IP address for eztv.it, they're probably both correct (GeoDNS style answering):
4.2.2.2 gives 185.19.104.80 for eztv.it
The authoritative nameservers for eztv.it are gdns1.ezdns.io and gdns2.ezdns.io, which give me 185.19.104.81.

AndyH · ‎27-10-2012

Quote from: disfroot

Whoa there ! A decision in the High Court (Injunction) may set a precedent, but it does not extend in scope beyond the named defendants. The decision may be flawed; it may be overturned on appeal. Given that this may occur, it is wise to limit the scope of the action as narrowly as possible.

A precedent is only set upon an appeal - a ruling by a HC judge is not binding on another judge, but it is rare to see two conflicting judgements. It is highly unlikely any of the claimants will ever appeal the decisions because they have nothing to gain from it (most ISPs do not respond/attend these hearings). Also, you can only appeal a decision when a point of law has been applied incorrectly and the judge gives you the right to appeal.

Quote from: disfroot
In addition, the claimant has to produce evidence in respect of all the named defendants. If no evidence is presented, then no case has been proven. That seems pretty basic stuff to me.

Evidence has been given at each hearing that copyrights are being infringed, which the judges have accepted.

VileReynard · ‎01-09-2007

The infringer(s) (if any) have to be listed and given their day in court.