Austrian Copyright Outfit Will Sue ISP For Refusing Block StreamingAdded: Thursday, November 11th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
VAP, the Austrian anti-piracy outfit, decided to apply for a court injunction to make a large ISP restrict access to a popular streaming portal. In its respond, the broadband provider UPC (the one that refused to comply with “three-strikes” in Ireland) again refused to block the popular website for the entertainment industry. In its turn, VAP dropped a hint that a legal precedent might help pave the way for further portal blockades.
Despite much discontent from the industry observers, forcing ISP to take responsibility for their users’ actions is becoming a very popular activity for the entertainment industry. The broadband providers face a huge pressure to take action against their own subscribers by sending them warnings and notifications under the “three-strikes” law, and at the same time they are forced to censor the Internet for sites that the movie industry doesn’t want the world to have access to.
VAP is an anti-piracy group of the movie and video industry of Austria. Last month it approached a few broadband providers with a demand to block a popular film streaming service Kino.to, ranking in the top 50 portals of Austria and Germany. Although the portal doesn’t host any illegal material itself, it indexes content stored on other streaming services and file-hosters.
VAP presented ISPs a blocking wish list containing over 1500 IP addresses and 9 domains, including MegaVideo.com, Freeload.to, and Archive.to. In respond, ISPA (Internet Service Providers Austria) reacted robustly to the demand, clearly saying that broadband providers are only carriers of data, which means that the demand had no legal basis. Instead, they recommended the copyright owners to consider innovative business models.
Nevertheless, VAP remained undeterred and recently announced about their plans to force Internet providers to cede to their wishes. This is planned to be done by singling out UPC to block the domains from the list through a court injunction. The group clearly said that they are going to hold the ISPs responsible for infringement, because the operators of the portals can’t be found.
Like its division in Ireland, Austrian UPC is standing its ground, saying that it has no obligation and no right to censor the web. Meanwhile, VAP admitted that it’s not about censorship, but rather about economic interests.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article
November 11th, 2010Posted by:
Thursday, November 11th, 2010
|posted by (2010-11-11 17:05:46)|
|VPN for VAP, Thanks Sam|
|As we all have said it before; the "copyright" holders do not want nor pay to "enforce" their "rights". They are trying to get some one else to do their job the ISP's for them, and if the ISP's refuse sue the crap out of them. Many laws now require the "copyright" holder do the job; but time after time it has been proven they can not.|
|I don't know how many times it has to be stated. Firstly, musicians make 95% of their money from Live Gigs. MOST of the distributing companies profits go to their shareholders. MOST of the distributing companies profits come from diversification outside of the film or music industry. Music Cds and Film or Music DVDs are overpriced by a factor of about FIVE TIMES or MORE what we should have to pay for them. MOST illegal downloads are by people who in any case CAN'T afford to buy them. The copyright infringement concerns are therefore TARGETTING THE DOWN AND OUT, and trying to preserve the exclusitivity of the 'club' of people who have money. Finally, most of Africa for example would not have been able to listen to ANY Beatles tracks but for P2P. So the message basically to these legal actions from some of the world's richest companies is GET LOST!!!!!!!|
|the internet should be a open access tool/resource. blocking access to certain things is like saying you can have a computer, but you cant have a monitor||
Most Popular Stories