On Fri, 4 May 2012, Scott Armitage wrote:
On 4 May 2012, at 11:44, Graeme Fowler wrote:
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."
I can't help but think this also implies a nice way to encourage IPv6
take-up, by narrowly interpreting an IP address as an IPv4 address and
continuing to permit IPv6 connections, but not IPv4 ones.
- Mark
