The block of the torrentsite The Pirate Bay is censorship, brings dangers with it and is not effective. That said Ziggo and Xs4all Friday against the court in the Hague. Brein demands of the two isps that they are blocking the site.
Lawyer John Allen, who Ziggo defended, warned that “the whole network is flat can be” by, for example, the restart of services if a dns or ip block is implemented. Ziggo was Friday when proceedings on the merits in The Hague, where Tweakers.net was present, compared to collecting society Brain.
Brein demanded that Ziggo and Xs4all that they, in their words, “reasonably simple intervention’, the domains of The Pirate Bay via a dns change inaccessible and ip-blocks of the block site. Also must, upon request, all new domain names and ip addresses of The Pirate Bay be blocked, so early lawyer Joris van Manen from Brein to court.
Brain finds a dns-blockade alone is not sufficient. That also appeared earlier in a lawsuit in Belgium: there had to be a isp The Pirate Bay block, using a dns change, which by a torrentsite simply a new domain was registered. This is precisely why Foundation wants to Brain that there is also an ip-block is entered. The foundation does not ask for the much deeper, deep packet inspection, emphasized lawyer Of Moons.
Ziggo and Xs4all repeated that they only have access to the internet offer and therefore not the appropriate party to a blockade. In the summary proceedings of last year, they used the same argument. Xs4all-lawyer Antic: “If we are a hosting provider had been and we had The Pirate Bay is hosted, Brein us a notice-and-takedown need to send and then we had the site taken offline.”
Brain, however, is that accessproviders responsible, because subscribers of Ziggo and Xs4all to use The Pirate Bay and infringe. Also block providers, for example, spam, set Brain, although that is voluntarily done. The principle of net neutrality, that in the new telecom act is recorded, would not alter this: there is an exception for orders of a judge who should be executed.
In addition to practical objections to the isps also moral objections, it appeared from the plea of a lawyer Milica Antic of Xs4all. A blockade would be in conflict with the human rights and free access to the internet. “It is censorship, it goes against the freedom of expression.” According to Antic, the isp is now a kind of ‘internetpolitie’, while the problem as to what her concerns at the source – the torrentsite itself, in this case – needs to be addressed.
Brain-lawyer Van Manen emphasized, however, that the blocking of the site works better than the prosecution of filesharers. Moreover, fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and free access to information, according to the lawyer, “not so relevant” in this lawsuit. “Against the right to free access to the internet is the right of copyright owners to release their property to enjoy.” That is a part of the information on The Pirate Bay is legal, does what the Brain is nothing.
The same applies to the fact that upload is not required by BitTorrent: according to Brain, this is not. The lawyer of the foundation, even suggested, incorrectly, that he has no evidence that there torrentclients where upload can be turned off, while in almost all the clients can.
Antic suggested, finally, that a blockade commercial disadvantage for isps: not only would the implementation of a blockade cost money, also is the service worth less as a part of the internet shuts down, calls them.
Brain and Ziggo are since april 2010, in the clinch, because Ziggo refused The Pirate Bay to block, even after that site by the Dutch court was advanced activities to cease. Xs4all has joined Ziggo attached, and together won the providers in mid-2010, a lawsuit in which Brain demanded that the isps, The Pirate Bay should block. Then began the Brain proceedings on the merits. The verdict in the case is still to wait: on January 11, it is pronounced, though it happens regularly that statements to be delayed.