The order isn't terribly long and is worth a skim. This part dismays me:
...Respondents have no obligation to verify whether the IP addresses to be blocked ... have been correctly identified, and are wholly reliant on the Plaintiffs or their appointed agent accurately
identifying and communicating ... such IP addresses
I get the practical reason, but it's very dangerous that a single entity gets to dictate what to block and customers who are impacted in error have limited recourse (I hope we see some of them apply to the court for relief).
Also the judge left us an out:
Respondent shall not be in breach of this Order where
it suspends in part compliance with paragraph 2 because the capacity of its blocking system
is exceeded by the number of IP addresses for the Target Servers notified
Everybody and your toaster, go get your IPv6 addresses and overwhelm their blocklists! Finally a use for my internet-enabled fridge / toothbrush / toilet flusher.
For those who are able, it looks like non-residential plans may be exempt.
The issue here is that IPs are dynamic and the list will by design incidentally block reassigned IPs and thus noninfringing content. One could write an order creating draconian penalties for incidentally blocking noninfringing content, but the judge instead almost certainly will give plaintiffs a "pass" for interfering with the ability of Canadians to incidentally access noninfringing content. He'll do that because he feels responsible for crafting the remedy, even if it's one that isn't suitable to be deployed. My guess is this ends badly for the judge in terms of eventually accidentally blocking some popular nonifringing content, and he receives an unexpected level of popular attention. Since he is responsible for a dynamic interference with information available to nonparties I hope he is making his contact information available to people whose browsing he interferes with.
...Respondents have no obligation to verify whether the IP addresses to be blocked ... have been correctly identified, and are wholly reliant on the Plaintiffs or their appointed agent accurately identifying and communicating ... such IP addresses
I get the practical reason, but it's very dangerous that a single entity gets to dictate what to block and customers who are impacted in error have limited recourse (I hope we see some of them apply to the court for relief).
Also the judge left us an out:
Respondent shall not be in breach of this Order where it suspends in part compliance with paragraph 2 because the capacity of its blocking system is exceeded by the number of IP addresses for the Target Servers notified
Everybody and your toaster, go get your IPv6 addresses and overwhelm their blocklists! Finally a use for my internet-enabled fridge / toothbrush / toilet flusher.
For those who are able, it looks like non-residential plans may be exempt.