On 4 May 2012, at 11:44, Graeme Fowler wrote: > Somewhere in the mists of time, I wrote: >> That's genuinely fascinating. I can't find the actual judgement and >> subsequent direction handed to ISPs in this case - does anyone have a >> copy? > > Et voila: > > http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1152.html > > Para. 13 is of particular interest, laying out as it does the basic "how > to". > > I cannot find a statement containing moles, and whack-em. One suspects > that this will be the case in the not-so-distant future. >
I was just looking at this and noted "IP address blocking is generally only appropriate where the relevant website's IP address is not shared with anyone else. If it is shared, the result is likely to be overblocking (see 20C Fox v BT (No 2) at [6]). In the present case, however, TPB's IP address is not shared. Thus IP address blocking is appropriate. Accordingly, the Defendants have agreed to orders which require IP address blocking, although the specific technical means to be employed varies from Defendant to Defendant." Does this means if they started sharing IP addresses with another service, the ruling would be invalid? Scott
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
