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

[Geralt]

I think this guy would never be so popular if not for piracy. I dont like his books but he has the right idea about piracy.

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2012/01/2...rate-my-books/

"Pirates of the world, unite and pirate everything I’ve ever written!"

"‘Pirating’ can act as an introduction to an artist’s work. If you like his or her idea, then you will want to have it in your house; a good idea doesn’t need protection.

The rest is either greed or ignorance"

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What alternative would you suggest, given that the site itself lies outside the jurisdiction of the court? This has to be better than going after individual downloaders.

It is clear that the individual downloaders are breaching the, in this case UK, law. What is against going after them from a legal point of view?

They would have the opportunity for a proper defense and all the rights that accused parties normally have before court. It would, in my opinion, lead to much more balanced verdicts.

Of course I understand the disadvantages -- individual downloaders vote, and if they get harassed enough they might vote somebody in office that can't be bought by large corporations. Also, they might start to push for legislation that limits the advantages large corporations have granted themselves with regards to IP.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

I think this guy would never be so popular if not for piracy. I dont like his books but he has the right idea about piracy.

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2012/01/2...rate-my-books/

"Pirates of the world, unite and pirate everything I’ve ever written!"

"‘Pirating’ can act as an introduction to an artist’s work. If you like his or her idea, then you will want to have it in your house; a good idea doesn’t need protection.

The rest is either greed or ignorance"

If he wants to give his work away, that is of course his choice, which he, as the rights-holder is free to make (and it's not "piracy" if it's done with the right-holder's permission, as would appear to be the case here). But - with the greatest respect - you cannot take that choice away from the rights-holder. That's what copyright is all about - it's literally "the right to control who can copy it". Nobody's suggesting that an author doesn't have the right to give his work away if he wishes to do so. The problem occurs when it's done without the author's consent.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Soldim

It is clear that the individual downloaders are breaching the, in this case UK, law. What is against going after them from a legal point of view?

Nothing at all, but it would be ruinously expensive for the defendant. In a British court, the losing side pays all the legal costs of both sides. It might cost £50,000 for a rights-holder to gather the information needed to prosecute a downloader. Do you think it's fair for a downloader to get a £50,000 judgement against them for downloading 1 song? I would consider it to be grossly disproportionate to the offence, but that would be the result of what you're proposing.

It also effectively restricts justice to those who can afford it, and that's something that your posts suggest that you're against. I, as an individual software author, can't afford to take an illegal downloader to court. Do you want justice to only be available to the wealthy? I don't.

Of course I understand the disadvantages -- individual downloaders vote, and if they get harassed enough they might vote somebody in office that can't be bought by large corporations. Also, they might start to push for legislation that limits the advantages large corporations have granted themselves with regards to IP.

Again you're implying that piracy is something that only affects "large corporations". Nothing could be further from the truth. Piracy affect everybody who creates things - software authors, books authors, and musicians.

[Geralt]

Neil Gaiman has the similar idea as Paulo Coelho.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Neil Gaiman has the similar idea as Paulo Coelho.

And again I repeat that it's a choice that the individual content creator is free to make. But nobody has the right to take that decision away from him or her. That's the issue that's at stake here. It's fine for Mr. Gaiman to upload his book to a torrent site if that's what he wishes to do. It's not OK for someone else to do it without his permission.

[Geralt]

And yet that is exactly what people do every day and because of it people like Gaiman and Coelho only benefit from it. Any who have read the blog post or watched the video I linked to the end would come to that conclusion just as Gaiman and Coelho did.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

And yet that is exactly what people do every day and because of it people like Gaiman and Coelho only benefit from it. Any who have read the blog post or watched the video I linked to the end would come to that conclusion just as Gaiman and Coelho did.

But if Mr. Gaiman and Mr. Coelho are giving permission to people to freely redistribute their work, it's not piracy. Piracy is copying done WITHOUT the permission of the copyright holder.

[Geralt]

Clearly you haven't watched or read what I linked.
Gaiman never gave permission for people to pirate their books, but he became famous in Russia through this and his sales sky rocketed by 300% when he put the Graveyard book free for one month. His books are continually pirated and his sales continually grow.
As for Coelho I'll quote him since you seem to didnt read what he said:

"In 1999, when I was first published in Russia ( with a print- run of 3,000), the country was suffering a severe paper shortage. By chance, I discovered a ‘ pirate’ edition of The Alchemist and posted it on my web page.
An year later, when the crisis was resolved, I sold 10,000 copies of the print edition.
By 2002, I had sold a million copies in Russia, and I have now sold over 12 million."


You dont honestly think people downloaded only from his site? And only one book he put? Come now.


Point is, and these two writers got it, piracy (ofc its without their permission) only serves as publicity and makes them known and more famous in countries where they wouldn't have been known or bought in such a quantity if not for people pirating their work.

Originally Posted by tompe

Is it also OK to block site that publish things that are not allowed to be published in UK?

Yes. If you don't like the prohibition on publishing something, then you should fight the prohibition itself. Fighting the ability to enforce the law will only result in a lawless society, something that very few people would want once they had to deal with the consequences.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Point is, and these two writers got it, piracy (ofc its without their permission) only serves as publicity and makes them known and more famous in countries where they wouldn't have been known or bought in such a quantity if not for people pirating their work.

I certainly accept that piracy can act as publicity, but do you not accept the fundamental principle that the creator of a work should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to give their work away free of charge? Personally I choose not to. Perhaps you do think that I "don't get it", but the point is that it's a choice that I should be free to make.

As far as Mr. Coelho goes, you said in your earlier post that he said:

Pirates of the world, unite and pirate everything I’ve ever written!

That certainly sounds to me like giving permission for the redistribution of his books.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Point is, and these two writers got it, piracy (ofc its without their permission) only serves as publicity and makes them known and more famous in countries where they wouldn't have been known or bought in such a quantity if not for people pirating their work.

And how does that argument work for JK Rowling or Steven King?
Do you really think they need help to be known?
Indie bands may well be happy people are sharing their work and helping them get known. Metallica weren't.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And how does that argument work for JK Rowling or Steven King?
Do you really think they need help to be known?
Indie bands may well be happy people are sharing their work and helping them get known. Metallica weren't.

Harlan Elison wasn't best pleased by it, either.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I certainly accept that piracy can act as publicity, but do you not accept the fundamental principle that the creator of a work should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to give their work away free of charge? Personally I choose not to. Perhaps you do think that I "don't get it", but the point is that it's a choice that I should be free to make.

As far as Mr. Coelho goes, you said in your earlier post that he said:



That certainly sounds to me like giving permission for the redistribution of his books.

Of course creator has that right. I accept that.
The concept you seem to refuse to understand is that breaking that right (piracy) produces benefit for these authors not damage.
I repeat again. These authors became famous and sold more copies because of piracy not because they gave their stuff for free.


Lol, Coelho said that in 2012. When he got how internet works. He was already famous, pirated and has sold million of copies in Russia and rest of the world in spite of piracy, or should I say because of it?

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And how does that argument work for JK Rowling or Steven King?
Do you really think they need help to be known?
Indie bands may well be happy people are sharing their work and helping them get known. Metallica weren't.

It works the same way. There is more to world then US and UK where JKR and SK are mainstream.
Lol Metallica. No comment on that. Even South Park made fun of them.