The IFPI Says All ISPs Should Be Forced to Block Copyright Infringing Websites…


  • Save


The IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) has written a letter to Austria’s largest internet service providers, demanding that they block some of the largest torrent sites within two weeks. The IFPI told five ISPs to block The Pirate Bay, Isohunt,, and, citing a European Court of Justice Ruling.

Earlier this year, a European Court of Justice ruled that ISPs could be forced to block copyright infringing websites. This ruling was the result of a four year case against

Additionally, the IFPI has weighed in on a website blocking bill passed by Singapore’s Parliament. This bill is similar to the one passed in Austria. It says rights owners can seek injunctions from the Singapore High Court that would require ISPs to block specific copyright infringing websites. Copyright owners would not be required to send any takedown notices.

Frances Moore, CEO of IFPI, says:

“The recording industry welcomes the fact that Singapore has joined the list of nations that consider website blocking to be a proportionate and effective tool to tackle digital piracy. Website blocking is an important way of reducing infringement and stimulating the development of a licensed digital music market. We urge policymakers in other countries to look at introducing measures similar to those set to be implemented in Singapore.”


Nina Ulloa covers breaking news, tech, and more. Follow her on Twitter: @nine_u

Image by Simon Pearson, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).

28 Responses

  1. there is something...

    Welcome to China !

    The day ISPs start to block websites in my country is the day I’ll stop buying music.

    • Jacob

      The progressives/ Republicans/ Democraps/ Marxists/ femists/ Communists are all in favour of internet censorship.

      “Anonymous” on the previous article conflates less copyright regulation with child pornographers.

      Typical progressive Right wing extremist argument.

      Leftwing/Feminist/Marxist/Communist argument:

      The internet allows people to post hate speech and misogyny. The internet should either be censored or banned. If anyone disagrees their a bigot, misogynist, white patriarchy, racist….

      Rightwing/Progressive/Fascist/Conservative argument:

      Child pornographers are using the internet to broadcast illegal images. The internet should be monitored or banned and zero tolerance should be enforced so that anyone who criticizes this argument is automatically a criminal.

      Who the fvck should I vote for in 2016?

      • Anonymous

        “The progressives/ Republicans/ Democraps/ Marxists/ femists/ Communists are all in favour of internet censorship”

        Guess, nobody’s on your side then, huh? Except pirates & pedophiles, of course.

    • Jeff

      Would you also like police to stop banning burglars from breaking into your home and stealing your belongings?

      • There issomething...

        How in 2014 people are still dumb enough to make that kind of analogy is beyond me. But it explains a lot about why music business can’t figure anything out…

        • Jeff

          Of course it’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s used to illustrate how artists perceive their current situation. I’m not claiming that banning websites blindly for copyright infringement is the end-solution to the current state of the music business.

          But – please tell me how actively avoiding infringing websites does any good for anyone? The Statute of Annem, while not perfect, did plenty of good for creators 300 years ago.

          In all honesty, I think one of the most important things we could do is put a 50-year (or similar) cap on copyright. Think of all the great pre-1964 works that would become available? And I do believe 50 years (the average amount of working years in one’s life) is a good set of time.

          • There issomething...

            If the IFPI, major labels and other rights holders put the same amount of money and effort in making a worldwide streaming service that actually pays artist what they are owed, music piracy wouldn’t be talked about. Instead of that, they spend resources fighting an endless war and at the same time, screw artists out of their royalties with their “equity share” and the like BS. THIS is the problem.

          • Jeff

            We’re on the same page about your suggestions – I think there needs to be more open dialogue about this from both sides of the issue. At the same time, I can’t concede to simply brushing under the rug people who have no respect for intellectual property.

            Back to “censorship” (from a U.S. perspective): the right of free speech does not entitle you to infringe on another person’s legal rights by way of that freedom. Censorship in response to criminal activity is in accord with freedom of speech. Censorship in response to speech is horrendous (to use your China example, how they block internet users from information about the Tiananmen Square massacre).

            Again, I think there are more productive things the industry could be doing, but simply ignoring it is also not the way to go.

        • illtalbeats

          A better analogy would be that a corporation owns an apartment complex. The landlord is fully aware that some of the people in those apartments are running illegal businesses out of those apartments – unlicensed doctors, selling stolen goods, drugs, etc… However, instead of kicking those tenants out, the landlord says that everyone in the building has the right to do whatever they want in their apartment.

  2. Anonymous

    Very nice initiative.

    Why should ISPs be allowed to profit from organized crime?

    • There is something...

      The irony is that it will only lead to people using the deep web, where there is far more organized crime, pirates and pedophiles. It shows again that all those folks at the IFPI and other lobbies don’t know a damn thing about internet and how people can use it.

      • Anonymous

        “it will only lead to people using the deep web”

        That’s the general idea.

        Hardcore criminals will always be able to find their old-school pirated warez and child porn, but ordinary people with jobs and families and lives don’t want to deal with the dark web.

        Legitimate content is so cheap and easily available today that they don’t have to.

        • There is something...

          It’s mostly true for music but not for movies, TV shows and the like. Everything is not that much available yet. It may change but for now the appeal would be probably too strong to be ignored. I think it won’t take long for ordinary people to know how to find and use this kind of site if more “common” sites get blocked. Kids are especially strong at that, and they are the more vulnerable target of those dark web sites.

          • Anonymous

            “I think it won’t take long for ordinary people to know how to find and use this kind of site if more “common” sites get blocked”

            Then you’ve got nothing to worry about.

            Anyway, the ISPs need to stop their piracy business now. I know it’s gonna hurt them when they lose half their traffic, but that’s what they get for basing their business on illegal content.

          • There is something...

            Do you read what I wrote ? If people start to get used to go on deep web to find what they’re looking for, it will be really, really hard to take them back to legals sites.

            But, yeah, it’s been more than 15 years we hear that piracy will be blocked… Still waiting to see any real effect and it don’t think any will change soon. Technology will alway be ahead and it’s because people in the music industry can’t understand it that we are were we are today, thinking that blocking a couple of websites will change the game.

          • David

            We are ‘still waiting to see any real effect’ because nothing has actually been done. Whenever legislators propose measures that might really bite – like SOPA – the tech lobby throws a fit of artificial hysterics until the legislators chicken out. In the UK the Digital Economy Act has been similarly neutered, leaving a system of voluntary warnings with no actual penalties involved at any stage. In France it is much the same story, with HADOPI revoked before any serious attempt to use it. Governments throughout the Western world will not do anything more than lip service towards fighting piracy, because (a) the tech lobby is now so powerful, and (b) there are more pirate users (and voters) than creators.

          • There is something...

            Look at Japan. In 2012 they strengthened their copyright law making illegal download a crime that could put you in jail. Last year saw a decline in BOTH digital and CD sales. Bottom line: you don’t make your fans pay by threatening them !

          • David

            The law was introduced in 2012, they started enforcing it in 2013, so let’s give it a few years to sink in.

          • there is something...

            No. They started enforcing it at the end of 2012. The Japanese fiscal years going from April 2013 to March 2014 already reflects the state of the music business with the law enforced and largely publicized.

          • Anonymous

            It’s not surprising though. Scaring people into a behavior doesn’t seem to always work. In fact, they might avoid being involved in music altogether because by doing so, it follows, more restrictions will be placed on their lives.

      • hippydog

        So people should stop locking their front doors?,
        cause no matter how good the lock is SOMEONE will figure a way to break in?

        • There is+something...

          If unlocking a front door was as easy as a couple clicks, I would say yes, it’s no use to lock it. That said, the analogy is dumb because it’s like some else blocked YOUR front door and chose who can go through and who can’t.

  3. hippydog

    honestly.. (IMO)
    As long as the ISPs’ also played by the ‘net neutrality’ thing,
    I agreed that they had the right to be protected from being charged as a piracy enabler.. (or whatever you would call em)

    once they made the decision (and fought for it), where they have the right to CHOOSE which services get bandwidth, then they automatically lose the right to be protected..

    • There is something...

      As far as I know, Austria ISPs do respect net neutrality. Can’t speak for Singapore…

  4. Willis

    In a perfect world…consumers would do what is it right and pay for things that they acquire.

  5. Ben

    As long as ISP’s can continue to hide behind “Safe Harbour” laws then there will be little progress.

    And it doesn’t matter what the legitimate industry comes up with – Pirate scum are criminals so they will continue to steal – we start cracking down on them then we’ll see progress.

    The UK police have today arrested the owner of Immunicity – let’s see far more of those arrests