36
submitted 1 month ago by 101@feddit.org to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Dima@lemmy.one 21 points 1 month ago

“Copyright holders who initiated the blocking are required to monitor the blocked websites to ensure they still meet the criteria for blocking. If the conditions are no longer met, they must inform the Clearing House, which then notifies the ISPs to lift the block,”

They have no incentive to monitor and unblock them, it would just be more work (and therefore cost them more) to do this. When the list of blocked sites isn't even public, there's no way for them to be held to account unless someone sets up a service to check - just like this student did.

[-] Tregetour 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Australia tried this in the early noughties I believe - running a non-public URL blacklist. After some parliamentary accountability and commmitees got it cracked open, they found that about 10% of the sites met the definition for inclusion, with the remainder being a grab-bag of things various politicians and bureaucrats didn't like.

this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54420 readers
148 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS