<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt'>
<p>On 23/11/2017 06:34, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15:53AM +1000,<br /> Noel Butler <<a href="mailto:noel.butler@ausics.net" rel="noreferrer">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>> wrote <br /> a message of 123 lines which said:<br /><br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">You obviously have no idea about the laws of Australia (or other<br /> countries), ISP's are required to take all practicable effort to<br /> protect the windroids from the big bad bogie mans, and required by<br /> law to stop access to a large number of torrent sites</blockquote>
<br /> Good thing is that it is no universally enforced, as show by the RIPE<br /> Atlas probes (honest answer is the first one):<br /><br /> % atlas-resolve -r 100 -c AU thepiratebay.org<br /> [104.27.216.28 104.27.217.28] : 72 occurrences <br /> [52.63.98.21 52.64.5.101 52.65.205.25 54.252.182.228 54.66.221.119 54.66.234.65 54.66.250.238 54.79.91.227] : 3 occurrences <br /> [101.167.164.53 101.167.166.53] : 3 occurrences <br /> [202.136.99.185] : 8 occurrences <br /> [202.136.99.184] : 5 occurrences <br /> [202.136.99.186] : 1 occurrences <br /> [202.136.99.181] : 3 occurrences <br /> Test #10290681 done at 2017-11-22T20:18:36Z<br /><br /> Congratulations, australians, for showing common sense against bad<br /> laws.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Although DNS manipulation is one form of acceptable action, it's not the only one, ACL's, etc are also common. But the Court requires users to be sent to a landing page advising of why its blocked, which is where RPZ comes in rather nicely.</p>
<p>The Federal Court has not been to anal about this as yet, but I do see a time when hollywood shows normal DNS blocking isn't working, so Court will order blocking at any cost, which will likely result on one of two things, ACL's (which will only ever be a wack a mole solution), or, take the action like some like me are doing now, that which started this lengthy thread :)</p>
<p>That said, the law is such that only ISP's named by the Federal Court are required to block, it means hollywood cops have to go back to the Federal Court for not only each new site, but also each new ISP they want to enforce blocks as well, at present, only the big players and some medium players have the Orders, there are a number of others (mostly small players) not named and under the law as its written, are therefor not required to block (until hollywood catches on and the court tells them too)</p>
<div>-- <br />
<p>Kind Regards,</p>
<p>Noel Butler</p>
<table border="1" width="748" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><small><small><small><small>This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments, immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only <a href="http://www.adobe.com/">PDF</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument">ODF</a> documents accepted, please do not send proprietary formatted documents </small></small></small></small></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body></html>