Technical measures (part II): URL blocking

This week Future of Copyright will devote specific attention to technical measures against piracy that can be employed by ISPs. Today we discuss the pros and cons of URL blocking.

ISPs have the power to block access to an URL (domain) if it is deemed to contain harmful or illegal content. Most ISPs have been known to resort to this course of action, particularly in cases involving child pornography or other illegal content. URL blocking is an effective mechanism to shut down direct downloads from websites offering downloadable material. Unfortunately, URL blocking is not a suitable option for tackling peer-to-peer file-sharing, as P2P traffic consists of numerous packets collected from different IP addresses. Possible exceptions are P2P aggregators like The Pirate Bay, which would probably lose most of their clientèle as a result of URL blocking.

From a legal point of view, URL blocking is debatable. Blocking access to websites is at odds with the freedom of speech and without just cause it may also constitute a wrongful act against the proprietors. In cases where no just cause can be established afterwards, the ISPs involved may in theory be held liable for the resulting damages suffered by website owners. This is not the only issue that comes into play, however. From a commercial standpoint, it may be disadvantageous for ISPs to block certain websites. ISPs that actively block download websites and torrent trackers lose their appeal to consumers whose primary interest is downloading. These legal and commercial concerns make ISPs understandably reluctant to block URLs of their own accord. Instead they prefer to leave the matter to the courts: in a recent case in Denmark, Tele2 was ordered by the courts to block access to The Pirate Bay.