Every ISP in the US has been ordered to block three pirate streaming services:
A federal judge has ordered all Internet service providers in the United States to block three pirate streaming services operated by Doe defendants who never showed up to court and hid behind false identities.
The blocking orders affect Israel.tv, Israeli-tv.com, and Sdarot.tv, as well as related domains listed in the rulings and any other domains where the copyright-infringing websites may resurface in the future. The orders came in three essentially identical rulings (see here, here, and here) issued on April 26 in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Each ruling provides a list of 96 ISPs that are expected to block the websites, including Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. But the rulings say that all ISPs must comply even if they aren't on the list [...].
[...] The plaintiffs are United King Film Distribution, D.B.S. Satellite Services (1998), HOT Communication Systems, Reshet Media, and Keshet Broadcasting. While the plaintiffs "transmit their programming in an encrypted form," the defendants' "various services and hardware permit end-user consumers to bypass the Plaintiffs' encryption to view Plaintiffs' content," the rulings said.
The judge ordered domain registrars and registries to transfer the domain names to the plaintiffs. The rulings include injunctions against "third parties providing services used in connection with Defendants' operations," including web hosts, content delivery networks, DNS providers, VPN providers, web designers, search-based online advertising services, and others.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @12:10AM
I'm talking to you, Microsoft.
https://old.reddit.com/r/FuckMicrosoft/ [reddit.com]
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @12:21AM
or does she ignore them like a lot of women do?
why do they ignore the balls?
I hate going down on women who smell like expired raw fish and taste just about as bad!
If I had my wish I would co()!^!%#$RDW$Q%!
NO CARRIER
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @12:32AM (2 children)
Which three? They must've got the real good shits, eh?
I have gots to get them, then. Don't be a tease - give me the names!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @12:56AM (1 child)
The 3 are listed right in the 2nd paragraph of TFS you dipshit. Now remember not to go to those sites, and don't tell anyone else, okay.
Sincerely,
-Barbra Streisand
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @01:03AM
Throw me a bone man. I typed "dipshit" in the address bar and got some weirdass white screen with, I think, mexican stuff. And I ain't no mexican. Not that there is anything wrong being mexican.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @02:34AM (12 children)
Does the court have the jurisdiction for this? Any smart legal people here know?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sonamchauhan on Friday May 06 2022, @03:17AM (2 children)
More importantly, by what mechanism will the court's verdict be _notified_ to _all_ US ISPs? Won't forcing compliance from one party - the .com and .tv registrars - be better? (Yes, I know .tv stands for Tuvalu -- so why not file suit there?)
This is like the court saying libraries in New York state must block requests to photocopy pages from three ultra-rare books held in another library. Instead of trying to ring every NY librarian, block the requests (or burn the books!) at the 'source' library.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @02:54PM (1 child)
She seems to have annexed some new states too. On page 16 of the judgement she has Hughesnet and AT&T both covering 53 states.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday May 09 2022, @01:56PM
It is not unusual for shorthand to refer to territories this way. With Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands, that covers them all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @04:46AM (8 children)
No, this would fail a number of FRCP for a very big reason. This is about as blatant a violation of the 5th Amendment's procedural due process guarantee as you can get. At a minimum, there should have been notice and the opportunity to be heard for each and every ISP on that list. I'm surprised a judge rubber-stamped this ruling like this. This is at the level of potentially losing your job as a judge because even a first year law student should know this stuff cold.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Friday May 06 2022, @09:09AM (7 children)
Well, it seems that they were given their chance but declined to take up the offer. If they offered no defence then what punishment do you expect they should receive? And what does your legal expertise suggest should have been done to prevent the continued abuse of copyright? Personally, I would have thought that taking control of the domains, as has been authorised, would cut off that source and therefore the ISPs should have nothing to block. But I am not at all certain that the judge has the right to take control of domains belonging to another country.
I am not saying that the copyright law is a good law - but it is still the law. That, however, is a different battle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @03:30PM (1 child)
Do you read schlockmercenary? The order is about on the same believability scale as the judgement Tagon's Toughs got that paid them a bonus for shooting the opposing attorneys.
Try clicking one of the links in the summary that go to the PDFs. If they weren't real they'd be hilarious.
and on and on it goes.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 06 2022, @04:00PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @09:43PM (4 children)
The ISPs are not the Doe defendants; the ones infringing are the Doe defendants. They are not parties at all. If the plaintiffs want to keep the ISPs from doing something, they should have either added them directly as parties (which FRCP 19 would require to satisfy Due Process) OR follow the rules for third-party enforcement (which also satisfy Due Process by given the third party notice and the right to be heard). That is how I expect them to enforce copyright: following the law in doing so.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday May 07 2022, @05:46AM (3 children)
I am not an American. I do not know your laws. IANAL.
I didn't say that the Doe defendants are the same as the ISPs. The defendants had a chance to 'defend' themselves in the courts. They failed to do so and have been found guilty.
The courts want to stop the offences from continuing to be committed. What they have done is ordered the seizure of the domains and they are in the process of instructing ISPs not to provide access to those domains. Both seem to me, as an outsider, to be reasonable actions to prevent further crimes from being committed.
You seem to be saying that procedurally the courts cannot do this. So I asked you what could they do to enforce their decision?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2022, @08:03AM (2 children)
I think I see the disconnect here. The enforcement actions are reasonable actions in and of themselves are not only reasonable but commonly done. The issue here is how they were done. The 5th Amendment says: "No person [...] shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" This clause has been interpreted to include 4 separate groups rights, one of which is called "procedural due process." This means that the Federal government cannot deprive a person of liberty without following proper procedure; violations of your procedural rights in and of themselves are enough to prevent the government from taking your life, liberty, or property even if everything else is satisfied.
Now looking at this case, I agree that the defendants have been afforded due process so far. But the key here is the ISPs. They have not been given due process. The court has issued an order telling them to take an action they otherwise wouldn't under penalty of contempt. That is a deprivation of liberty. The federal government is restricted from depriving any person without giving the person being deprived due process, which would include notice, the right to a hearing, present evidence, etc. Most of the time, third parties like ISPs, registrars, creditors, debitors, etc. will reject that opportunity but it still has to be provided by the government. With that in mind, Congress passed laws and the courts made the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide basic guidelines as to what that means.
The best way to see the difference is to compare the sections Against Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Post-Judgment Discovery (or the other sections, but that one is the most clear). The former contains no qualifying language (other than personal jurisdiction limits), no notice requirements, no procedural aspects, or anything else other than the actions the court is compelling starting immediately on the whole lot. The latter mentions specific procedural processes (FRCP 69, actual notice, and right to request a hearing by reference), a triggering action, and is limited in party scope. What the judge should have done against the ISPs was to provide a similar order contingent on due process and specifically mention FRCP 71 or outline its details. This would have made it so that the judge isn't actually violating due process and the ISPs are currently not ordered to do anything. Incidentally, this case would proceed how these cases normally do.
Normally, the cases include such language. The plaintiff then has the responsibility to mail the judgment and the required notice to each and every ISP they want to enforce it against. Those ISPs are given a period of time to answer or default on the notice. If they answer and request a hearing, they get to present evidence to the judge as to why the relief should not be granted. The judge then gets to decide if they will enforce the order on that ISP, modify it, or grant their relief. It is basically a miniature trial just on the issue of whether the courts order should be enforce or not. If the judge rules against them, they get to appeal it (all the way to SCOTUS if they want to). If they default or the judges rule against them, only then do they have to comply with the order. As I mentioned, most parties and most ISPs here would probably default or waive and skip all of that, but the 5th Amendment, laws, and Rules requires they be given the option to exercise those rights.
The best example is how a debitor garnishment usually goes. Say you sue me and win a default judgment for $1,000. You want your money, so you go to the court to get a writ that makes my bank give the money it owes me to you instead. That bank will get the writ and notice. They will then answer and say that they do not owe you $1,000 because I only have $100 in my account. If you decline to just take the $100 or settle for taking my money in parts whenever I deposit some, either of you can then have a hearing and the judge will rule. Same goes for an employer or anyone else. Again, the whole thing is basically a miniature trial around a single issue but it is required by the 5th Amendment before the government can do anything.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday May 07 2022, @08:21AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08 2022, @02:11AM
No problem. I'm always happy to take the time to answer honest questions. Too bad the hard part is often figuring out what the question being asked is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @02:47AM
All this will lead to is an AOL like experience.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Friday May 06 2022, @03:28AM (2 children)
That's quite a range of groups who are subject to the order. I would bet most of them were not involved in the actual case. Is there any grounds to reject an order because you were not involved in the case?
I mean, it's like Alice sued Bob for breaking her iphone and the judge orders Eve to buy Alice a new one. WTF does it have to do with Eve? And even if you can make some case that Eve sold Bob the hammer he used to break the iphone, shouldn't Eve also get the chance to defend in court before being subject to the order?
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @04:59AM (1 child)
If hauled into court for not complying, you could argue the order violates the 5th Amendment and a number of laws and the FRCP. Step 1 of enforcing this against you is to serve you with notice that the ruling was made against you. Step 2 is that you have to have the opportunity to argue about it in court. Step 3 is doing Step 2 in front of a new judge because this one will probably be biased as hell to cover their own ass for making a decision like this. Only then could you even remotely be concerned about liability for not complying. As said above, this is about as blatant a Due Process violation as you could get.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Friday May 06 2022, @07:28AM
Yes, it is very much a violation. Can it even be called a court order if the court never notifies the party that they have been ordered?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday May 06 2022, @08:43AM (3 children)
I guess DNS can refuse to resolve whatever URL. But what if I type the IP address in? Does ISP have to block an IP address? And if so which one? Does ISP do some sort of reverse DNS lookup to figure it out (which may not be possible, I'm not sure).
Maybe judge is running the servers and is shooting for Streisand effect.
(Score: 2) by https on Friday May 06 2022, @11:49AM (2 children)
If you type in just the IP address, the hosting server has no way of knowing wich of the 7,003 different domains that it's hosting you want. Depending on the level of professionalism of the company, you'll get a 403 or an Apache "It Works!" page. If you're moderately unlucky you'll get a contact page for the hosting service. More likely that you just saw some freeeeaky sexy-credit-card-time ads and your machine is now the property of Aleksei in Estonia.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday May 06 2022, @12:25PM (1 child)
I live in a world where IP address maps to a single node. Clearly the old world.
Presumably there is a way to route to the hosting server and then ask it to resolve the Domain Name - after all this is what the ISP's DNS is doing? Forgive my naive questions, I never got involved in this stuff.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @09:07PM
That old world assumed IPv4 addresses would never run out.
The new world allows for the possibility multiple domain names, such as nicesite.example and whatever.invalid might reside on the same IP.
So YOUR BROWSER sends a line called "Host: nicesite.example" to the IP address so the server knows which domain you want.
Regarding resolution: The hosting server talks HTTP - name resolution uses DNS. HTTP's job is to give you a copy of a file or connect you to a process that will output a stream of HTML data. HTTP's job is not to resolve domain names, so it won't do that automatically without a layer on top.
That layer is called DNS-over-HTTP but when you "layer over the top" you need cooperation from BOTH sides - so it requires the other end to have a DoH server running. You can't just send DoH requests to any IP and get a DNS name back.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2022, @10:35PM
My friend pulled the URLS because it's not in TFA. You'd have to read all the PDFs.
Israel.tv, Israeli-tv.com, and Sdarot.tv
Unless he got them wrong, 2 still resolve. They are in moonspeak and would not have been used by almost anyone in the US.
The real tragedy is primewire deleted all of it's links and now there is no good replacement. No matter, I have stopped watching TV, even with all of it available for free. I didn't even notice primewire for 3 months despite it being my primary (lol) way of consuming this type of entertainment.
I can now proudly say you can take your shows and shove them you know where. Not even for free!