High Court orders British ISPs to block "The Pirate Bay"

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The idea of warnings followed by slowing down your internet connection, planned for the US later this year, seems about right to me.

I respectfully disagree. That is simply foisting the job of investigating possible illegal activity—and it's corresponding punishment—onto private companies where it most certainly doesn't belong. We already have police, courts and penal institutions to do these very things. Should due process be skipped simply because it's inconvenient and/or expensive?

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by sabredog

I am of the belief that all this "woe is us" whining is simply all rearguard actions to avoid actually making meaningful reforms so as to be relevant in today's digital economies.

Deserves to be repeated in bold.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm supporting it because it's high time that someone did something about the thieving scum who run these pirate sites. As a small independent software developer it's impossible for me to do anything myself, but I'm delighted to see the big players taking action. Everybody wins (except the thieves, of course). Let's hope that this is merely the first of many such cases.

Copies of Microsoft's applications and OSs can be had through TPB and other sites. Remember Bill Gates' comment: "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours."

MS benefits from piracy. I don't think we will see them taking action any time soon.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

This post is dripping with delicious irony-sauce. Berating someone for getting the technical meaning of "stealing" wrong, and then applying a meaning that is no less correct buy helps advance your own personal position caused me to have a grin two-sizes too large for my face. Thank you for that.

It is not "technical" to point out that a company charging what in your opinion is too much for a product is "stealing." It is fundamental.

"Stealing" is a broader concept than theft, but in my jurisdiction, even theft is "exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its use or value."

Except, as has been pointed out many times, and in threads that you've participated in, recent studies have shown that pirates do in fact buy quite a bit of media even though it's evident that they know how to get it for free. Gabe Newell at Valve Software would certainly disagree with you as well and say that most pirates are merely under-served customers. Valve's profits in the Russian market (where piracy is rampant), would certainly seem to suggest that Gabe is correct on this one.

It's easy to demonize copyright infringers, but hyperbole doesn't make for a useful conversation.

Yeah, I've participated in those threads. But I don't see how they are really relevant.

Do *you* believe that a person who charges more than you want to pay for a product is stealing?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

So do you see The Pirate Bay to be an ideal location for the police to investigate illegal downloaders? What would be their investigative tools? Get subpoenas to trace back IP addresses, perhaps? Then get individual court orders to go into people's houses, confiscate their computers, and make a forensic examination of their hard drives?

I would say no to the above, because it is too expensive.

As people keep pointing out, we shouldn't allow crime to go on just because it is expensive to police it. They don't seem to mind spending money to catch people downloading child porn, even though downloading an mp3 instead will result in a much higher fine.

Saving money should never be used as an excuse to do away with the presumption of innocense until proven guilty.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by no.guru

Copies of Microsoft's applications and OSs can be had through TPB and other sites. Remember Bill Gates' comment: "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours."

MS benefits from piracy. I don't think we will see them taking action any time soon.

Then why did Microsoft take such drastic measures as online registration and activation for every individual copy, all but eliminating Windows and Office piracy? I travel in countries where they use plenty of pirated copies. But all old versions like Windows XP. Few dare to use the Windows 7 copies, apparently they are seriously messed up. Besides, Microsoft used their official connections in China to enforce that every computer must be shipped with an official copy of Windows (or with some other OS installed).

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by no.guru

Copies of Microsoft's applications and OSs can be had through TPB and other sites. Remember Bill Gates' comment: "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours."

MS benefits from piracy. I don't think we will see them taking action any time soon.

How long ago were they saying that? I think they must have changed their mind once they reached market dominance because since XP their copy protection has become more and more intrusive with each release. Obviously that won't apply to pirate versions because it will have been stripped off, but it does show a desire not to have it copied. I've also heard they trawl through Ebay looking for people selling genuine OEM disks without a computer to go with it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Saving money should never be used as an excuse to do away with the presumption of innocense until proven guilty.

And that was the case here. A judge looked at the evidence and determined - very properly - that TPB were guilty of encouraging and facilitating copyright infringement. Do you disagree with that finding?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And that was the case here. A judge looked at the evidence and determined - very properly - that TPB were guilty of encouraging and facilitating copyright infringement. Do you disagree with that finding?

I'm witholding my judgement until I find out who put forward the defence argument for the people who used TPB for promotional purposes. A judge who only hears evidence from the prosecution is unlikely to form a balanced judgement.

[Ajax]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

all but eliminating Windows and Office piracy?

I just randomly checked a popular torrent site, doesn't seem like they have eliminated it very well.

Just one version of Office 2010 Pro was downloaded over 55,000 times at that site.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I'm witholding my judgement until I find out who put forward the defence argument for the people who used TPB for promotional purposes. A judge who only hears evidence from the prosecution is unlikely to form a balanced judgement.

No one put forward a defense argument in this case because the lawsuit was against the ISPs who had no interest in wasting money defending The Pirate Bay.

Originally Posted by HarryT

And that was the case here. A judge looked at the evidence and determined - very properly - that TPB were guilty of encouraging and facilitating copyright infringement. Do you disagree with that finding?

I disagree with the process whereby, in a civil case, the public can be denied access to a website and where the website owner isn't able to provide any arguments or cross-examine. I think that censorship is harmful and should only done where:

(ii) the website owner has been served and added as a party; and

(ii) the court has conducted a balancing exercise to determine the harm caused by the website in question versus the harm caused by censoring it.

Representatives from The Pirate Bay may not have shown up to court, but it giving them the choice before they are sanctioned seems pretty fundamental to a fair and just process to me. And even if they were served and didn't show up, the court should still have undertaken a balancing exercise to balance the harm to copyrightholders versus harm to the public caused by censorship.

I wouldn't have an issue with the result if a fair process were used, but in my opinion the process wasn't fair.

I'm sure now Stonetools will now accuse me of being a secret pirate, a secret communist and maybe the person who really killed JFK.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I think that censorship is harmful and should only done where:

(ii) the website owner has been served and added as a party; and

(ii) the court has conducted a balancing exercise to determine the harm caused by the website in question versus the harm caused by censoring it.

Representatives from The Pirate Bay may not have shown up to court, but it giving them the choice before they are sanctioned seems pretty fundamental to a fair and just process to me. And even if they were served and didn't show up, the court should still have undertaken a balancing exercise to balance the harm to copyrightholders versus harm to the public caused by censorship.

I wouldn't have an issue with the result if a fair process were used, but in my opinion the process wasn't fair.

I'm sure now Stonetools will now accuse me of being a secret pirate, a secret communist and maybe the person who really killed JFK.

So you actually think that if you can't serve somebody then any case is unfair... great defence against crimes... I'll do what I want then flee the jurisdiction and carry on committing crimes by remote in your jurisdiction... did you read the full judgement relating to the inability to contact TPB owners... do you seriously mean that because of that, there should be no action to take because "it's not fair, if they can't defend themselves..." when they've made the choice to move out of their home country and scatter round the world... your opinion may be that the process was unfair but that tends to make your opinion, at the best, incredibly naive... there have been many court cases where defendants are not present (usually by their choice) and nobody denies their legality so what's so special about running a "pirate" site that requires the owners get special treatment when thay can't be bothered to defend themselves in courts anyway...

[HansTWN]

And the public has not been harmed.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And the public has not been harmed.

And neither has TPB. Only the internet and the ISPs—who were saddled with achieving what the authorities could not—were harmed: "You must spend your resources in an ultimately futile attempt to shut this rogue site down... since we have failed miserably in our own attempts."

Can't catch a criminal? Perhaps slapping his/her mother around will make you feel better for a bit.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Then why did Microsoft take such drastic measures as online registration and activation for every individual copy, all but eliminating Windows and Office piracy? I travel in countries where they use plenty of pirated copies. But all old versions like Windows XP. Few dare to use the Windows 7 copies, apparently they are seriously messed up. Besides, Microsoft used their official connections in China to enforce that every computer must be shipped with an official copy of Windows (or with some other OS installed).

Yes, reportedly a high percentage of software in Asian countries is pirated.

I don't pirate software myself, but I've reinstalled Windows 7 from Microsoft's own ISO which is still available online. The installation wasn't halted when I didn't provide an accurate activation number.

Also I have to take issue with your ".. all but eliminating Windows and Office piracy."

"Microsoft Office 2010 ProPlus PRECRACKED" - a top, active Microsoft torrent now on TPB - doesn't sound like they're stopping piracy of their software.