The driving forces behind the request, Bell, Rogers, and Groupe TVA, were not prepared to let the blocking idea slip away, however. A few months ago the companies\u00a0filed a lawsuit\u00a0<\/a>against the operators of a \u2018pirate\u2019 IPTV service GoldTV.ca. The companies argued that the service provides access to their TV content without licenses or authorization.<\/p>\n Among other things, the rightsholders requested an interim injunction to stop the operators, who remain unidentified, from continuing to offer the allegedly-infringing IPTV service. This was granted, but despite the order, some of the infrastructures remained available.<\/p>\n This resulted in a follow-up request from the media giants, which became the setup for the first-ever pirate site blocking order in Canada. Specifically, the companies requested an interlocutory injunction order that would require several Canadian ISPs to block GoldTV domain names and IP-addresses.<\/p>\n Late last week this request was granted by a Federal Court in Ontario. An order, issued by Judge Patrick Gleeson, requires most of Canada\u2019s largest ISPs, including Cogeco, Rogers, Bell, Eastlink and, TekSavvy, to start blocking their customers\u2019 access to GoldTV within 15 days.<\/p>\n The order is unique in North America and relies heavily on UK jurisprudence, can be extended with new IP-addresses and domain names, if those provide access to the same IPTV service. The court doesn\u2019t prescribe a specific\u00a0blocking method<\/a>\u00a0but mentions DNS and IP-address blocking as options.<\/p>\n Since Rogers and Bell are also ISPs, these companies didn\u2019t object to their own demands. Several other Internet providers didn\u2019t protest either. However,\u00a0TekSavvy did, listing a broad range of objections<\/a>.<\/p>\n TekSavvy, for example, argued that blocking websites isn\u2019t very effective, as subscribers have plenty of workarounds they can try, including VPNs. In addition, the company pointed out that many smaller ISPs are not affected by the order, which means that they don\u2019t have to block the service.<\/p>\n Judge Gleeson recognized that blocking measures are not foolproof. However, based on the evidence provided, he concluded that it\u2019s effective enough to make a difference.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s clear from the evidence that site-blocking will not eliminate user access to infringing services. However, the evidence does establish that in those jurisdictions where site-blocking measures have been implemented there has been a significant reduction in visits to infringing websites.<\/p>\n \u201cI am satisfied that a site-blocking order is an effective means of limiting access to GoldTV Services,\u201d Judge Gleeson added.<\/p>\n TekSavvy further argued that it could become very costly to implement a site-blocking system, which would put a significant financial strain on the company. In addition, the order would set a precedent that could lead to hundreds or even thousands of site-blocking orders<\/p>\n Judge Gleeson didn\u2019t agree with this assessment. TekSaffy can rely on DNS and IP-address blocking, which it\u2019s already technically capable of. That wouldn\u2019t require any new hardware investments. In addition, ISPs don\u2019t have to pay the costs of the implementation, as that will be covered by the rightsholders.<\/p>\n TekSavvy also pointed out that site-blocking measures violate net neutrality and freedom of expression. But again, the Court was not convinced that this weighs stronger than the interests of the rightsholders.<\/p>\n \u201cI am satisfied, in the face of a strong prima facie case of ongoing infringement and a draft order that seeks to limit blocking to unlawful sites and incorporates processes to address inadvertent over-blocking, that neither net neutrality nor freedom of expression concerns tip the balance against granting the relief sought,\u201d Judge Gleeson writes.<\/p>\n All in all, the Federal Court sided with the copyright holders. This means that the first-ever pirate site blockade in Canada will soon be in effect. Whether TekSavvy or any of the other ISPs plan to appeal the decision is not known at this point.<\/p>\n The site-blocking question has been a point of debate in Canada over the past several months. While local authorities and lawmakers have\u00a0spoken out\u00a0<\/a>against a non-judicial site-blocking regime, Judge Gleeson\u2019s ruling shows that site-blocking injunctions certainly are an option.<\/p>\n Interestingly, this approach was previously raised by opponents of Fairplay Coalition\u2019s site blocking push. At the time, the rightsholders countered that the legal process could take\u00a0up to 765 days<\/a>, but in this case, it went a lot quicker.<\/p>\n A copy of Judge Gleeson\u2019s order is\u00a0available here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/canadablock.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/blockcan.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"