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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by afv011

When any site, illegal or not, can't be accessed without the site's owners having a chance to defend themselves against such action, their rights are indeed affected.

They were given the opportunity to demonstrate that they were a legitimate business by complying with requests to remove links to copyright-infringing material. They declined to do so. So yes, they've lost the "right" to continue to offer copyright-infringing material to people in the UK as a consequence of their own actions.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They were given the opportunity to demonstrate that they were a legitimate business by complying with requests to remove links to copyright-infringing material. They declined to do so. So yes, they've lost the "right" to continue to offer copyright-infringing material to people in the UK as a consequence of their own actions.

It is more that the people in UK have lost the right to access the legal material at certain sites. Seem to me to be like blocking all post and packages from certain places just because some of them contain contraband.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is more that the people in UK have lost the right to access the legal material at certain sites. Seem to me to be like blocking all post and packages from certain places just because some of them contain contraband.

The sites have brought it entirely upon themselves by failing to comply with take-down requests. They have nobody to blame for that but themselves.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is more that the people in UK have lost the right to access the legal material at certain sites. Seem to me to be like blocking all post and packages from certain places just because some of them contain contraband.

Lets be serious here, nobody that's tech savy in at least small way has lost anything. (Maybe some mamas and papas in 50s and 60s at best)
You cant ban people from getting things on internet illegally as long as they have connection.
The only way they could have stopped piratebay, was to take it down, like they did with megaupload.
But then another piratebay would pop up, because all of piratebay torrents
weigh 75 MB. Take the piratebay down, and another sites will pop up like mushrooms after the rain. I mean how much space do you need to keep 75MB online?

All this legal action is waste of time and money. Internet cant be regulated in this way. I am not even sure it can be regulated at all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Lets be serious here, nobody that's tech savy in at least small way has lost anything. (Maybe some mamas and papas in 50s and 60s at best)
You cant ban people from getting things on internet illegally as long as they have connection.
The only way they could have stopped piratebay, was to take it down, like they did with megaupload.
But then another piratebay would pop up, because all of piratebay torrents
weigh 75 MB. Take the piratebay down, and another sites will pop up like mushrooms after the rain. I mean how much space do you need to keep 75MB online?

All this legal action is waste of time and money. Internet cant be regulated in this way. I am not even sure it can be regulated at all.

You appear to be suggesting that it's not worth taking action against criminals merely because it's not possible to wipe out all crime. That's not an attitude that I can agree with, I'm afraid.

[Geralt]

Well whether we agree or not is irrelevant.
On the other hand, I wasn't suggesting what you concluded.
What you can take from my post is this:
The legal action you take in real world and which works there, doesn't work in world wide web.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Well weather we agree or not is irrelevant.
On the other hand, I wasn't suggesting what you concluded.
What you can take from my post is this:
The legal action you take in real world and which works there, doesn't work in world wide web.

Apologies if I misunderstood you. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that this action will wipe out piracy; clearly it won't. But it's certainly a step in the right direction. The only way to tackle these criminal organisations is one site at a time. The is certainly (to my mind) a better approach than that of prosecuting individual downloaders.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Apologies if I misunderstood you. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that this action will wipe out piracy; clearly it won't. But it's certainly a step in the right direction. The only way to tackle these criminal organisations is one site at a time.

No problem.
The way they are tackling them as you said is what doesn't work here. Legal method is the way to go in real world, but its just laughable if applied online. It doesn't work. You take one site down, another one pops up. Internet works faster then any court can.
Obviously lawyers and courts have a hard time dealing with this and they still haven't. Honestly I think people will find this ruling as minor annoyance, if even that, and go about their business as usual.

I don't think piracy will ever go away. Of course that is my opinion, and you're free to hate it, disagree with it, take offence to it, not care for it or agree with it. As I said whether we agree or not makes no relevance at all.

[HarryT]

No, I entirely agree with you. Piracy has been around for centuries, and will probably always be around. But, with the greatest respect, I don't think that accepting piracy as a fact means that no steps should be taken to try to combat it. People who operate web sites are not "above the law", as the founders of TPB found out, for example. It's far better to try to tackle the problem at source - go after the sites - than it is to go after individual downloaders.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I entirely agree with you. Piracy has been around for centuries, and will probably always be around. But, with the greatest respect, I don't think that accepting piracy as a fact means that no steps should be taken to try to combat it. People who operate web sites are not "above the law", as the founders of TPB found out, for example. It's far better to try to tackle the problem at source - go after the sites - than it is to go after individual downloaders.

True.

But until there is a legal offer that matches the customer's wants and needs, they won't go anywhere.
The new game of throne season will be aired in France, with subtitle, one week after the US airing.
That will do more to reduce piracy than blocking websites IMHO...
They need to stop complaining and start working on "Why do people prefer the illegal way ?"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

They need to stop complaining and start working on "Why do people prefer the illegal way ?"

Because it's free. Unless you're suggesting that copyright holders give everything away free of charge, how are you going to stop people from downloading stuff for free? Eg, I look on Amazon and "Game of Thrones, Season 2" is available on DVD for £25 (€29). If I can easily download it free of charge, why would I pay £25 for it? The best approach - IMHO - is to remove temptation and prevent people from casually accessing the sites where it can be accessed for nothing.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because it's free. Unless you're suggesting that copyright holders give everything away free of charge, how are you going to stop people from downloading stuff for free? Eg, I look on Amazon and "Game of Thrones, Season 2" is available on DVD for £25 (€29). If I can easily download it free of charge, why would I pay £25 for it? The best approach - IMHO - is to remove temptation and prevent people from casually accessing the sites where it can be accessed for nothing.

The price part is only part of the problem.
It's also about DRM, geo-restiction, anti piracy "ads" on dvd you've paid for.... All the crap the legit user have to deal with, and not pirates...
You've said it was easy to download stuff, trouble is, the legal offer is not as easy.

You don't need to make them free, affordable is enough. A price where the customer don't fell it's a rip off.
Or use some ad supported model.

Admitting they succeed in removing all illegal sources, if the legal offer don't exist, or is at price customer feel too expensive, they still won't sell.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They were given the opportunity to demonstrate that they were a legitimate business by complying with requests to remove links to copyright-infringing material. They declined to do so. So yes, they've lost the "right" to continue to offer copyright-infringing material to people in the UK as a consequence of their own actions.

Were they obligated by law in the place where they are located to comply? If MR would be asked to remove books that are infringing on copyright that is valid in the UK do they have to do comply?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by sabredog

I find it obscene that you make any comparison regarding copyright infringement to something as illegal, immoral and disgusting as child pornography.

My wife was sexually molested by a family friend and a relative from the age of 8 to the age of 14. The experiences she endured have caused significant mental scarring.

To trivialise such crimes thus in your post is truly obscene.

I did not trivialize crimes against children. Just the opposite, I find it offensive that you are twisting my words and are making it sound as if I said that child abuse and copyright infringement are equally bad. Using this extreme example I pointed out that it would be the logical extension of the position taken by some forum members that websites are only responsible for observing local laws where the site is situated and should be free to distribute their material worldwide. A slippery slope indeed when people take that legal position.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I did not trivialize crimes against children. Just the opposite, I find it offensive that you are twisting my words and are making it sound as if I said that child abuse and copyright infringement are equally bad. Using this extreme example I pointed out that it would be the logical extension of the position taken by some forum members that websites are only responsible for observing local laws where the site is situated and should be free to distribute their material worldwide. A slippery slope indeed when people take that legal position.

Are you suggesting that as long as people in the UK are blocked from seeing crimes against children on the internet all is right with the world?