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

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Why do you keep asking me what the court's argument is?
I have posted an extract, and a link is available to the full judgement.
You can just go and read it and find out for yourself what the court said.

I've read it.

The grant or purported grant to do the relevant act may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances.

i) Its name – The Pirate Bay – and associated pirate ship logo are clearly a reference to the popular terminology applied to online copyright infringement: online piracy.

ii) According to a statement published on its site, it was founded by a "Swedish anti copyright organisation".

iii) The matters described in paragraph 13 above.

iv) In the first instance judgment in the Swedish criminal proceedings, Lundström was recorded as stating that "the purpose of the site was pirate copying".

It is clear to the court that TPB isn't pretending to be anything else than a pirate site. Therefore it doesn't make any sense that they would also declare that TPB was trying to get the public to think otherwise.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Favourite writer, and the official ebooks of his only came out a few months ago.

Doesn't this make it a bad example? When you have illegal sources as the only sources for ebooks by this author for years, why would you expect the legal sources to jump at the top of the search when they finally come on the market?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Doesn't this make it a bad example? When you have illegal sources as the only sources for ebooks by this author for years, why would you expect the legal sources to jump at the top of the search when they finally come on the market?

It's not even clear those were "illegal" sources, as opposed to "unauthorized." Sony v Tenenbaum included the judge's statement that

file sharing for the purposes of sampling music prior to purchase or space-shifting to store purchased music more efficiently might offer a compelling case for fair use. Likewise, a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense.

(emphasis added.) Free ebooks when there are no authorized sources for sale might be fair use... after all, they're not cutting into the rights holders' ebook income.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Doesn't this make it a bad example? When you have illegal sources as the only sources for ebooks by this author for years, why would you expect the legal sources to jump at the top of the search when they finally come on the market?

The same could be said for Harry Potter, but there are no pirate links on the first 5 pages for those (I didn't bother looking further).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They are, however, effective against the casual or inadvertent pirate, who simply comes across the link to TPB in the results from a Google search.

Not really, since the same google search that returned TPB results is also going to return links to a dozen other torrent sites that aren't being blocked. I don't see how that will have any effect on casual users, or even piracy in general.

Sure, it sucks for TPB, but so what. There were other "well known" sites before TPB existed, and after TPB is gone there will be new ones that take over. Singling one of them out and blocking it is just a game of whack-a-mole. The government can play that game forever, but there's always going to be another mole.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The government can play that game forever, but there's always going to be another mole.

This has nothing to do with "the government"; it was a civil action taken in the courts.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This has nothing to do with "the government"; it was a civil action taken in the courts.

It was a court order, wasn't it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It was a court order, wasn't it?

The judicial system in the UK is not a part of the government. It is entirely distinct from it, unlike in the US.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The judicial system in the UK is not a part of the government. It is entirely distinct from it, unlike in the US.

I didn't know that, thanks for the clarification. It doesn't have much to do with the point of my post though.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The judicial system in the UK is not a part of the government. It is entirely distinct from it, unlike in the US.

The Judiciary of England and Wales disagrees with you. See:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-th...d-constitution

Where it says "The justice system is one of the three branches of the state. The other two branches are the executive, or the government, and the legislature, which is the two Houses of Parliament. In most democracies these three branches of the state are separate from each other." [emphasis added]

It does have independance as described here:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-th...il/jud-acc-ind

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The judicial system in the UK is not a part of the government. It is entirely distinct from it, unlike in the US.

How does the UK judicial system enforce it's rulings, then? From where do they get their power?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by nogle

The Judiciary of England and Wales disagrees with you. See:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-th...d-constitution

Where it says "The justice system is one of the three branches of the state. The other two branches are the executive, or the government, and the legislature, which is the two Houses of Parliament. In most democracies these three branches of the state are separate from each other." [emphasis added]

That confirms what Harry said, not refutes it.
The justice system and the government are separate, both parts of the state, but the justice system is not part of the government.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by nogle

The Judiciary of England and Wales disagrees with you. See:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-th...d-constitution

Where it says "The justice system is one of the three branches of the state. The other two branches are the executive, or the government, and the legislature, which is the two Houses of Parliament. In most democracies these three branches of the state are separate from each other." [emphasis added]

It does have independance as described here:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-th...il/jud-acc-ind

Read what you wrote... "three branches of state" not government... "the other two branches are the executive, or the government, and the legislature." You say that it is an arm of the state along with the government etc which means it isn't the government... You just managed to prove what you were trying to disprove...

[Ninjalawyer]

I would have preferred if this were a criminal action rather than civil. At least there would be a higher standard applied to evidence in a criminal case.

[ProfCrash]

The Judicial System in just about every country is a branch of government. For most Democracies, the Judicial branch is seperate from the Executive and Legislative branches of government. I think what Harry is getting at is a key difference in the Presidential and Parlimentary democracies.

The UK, and many Parlimentary systems of Democracy, the Legislative and Executive branches are closely connected. The Prime Minister is also a Member of the Parliment and the Executive Branch is, traditionally, dominated by the majority party or a coalition of parties found in the Parliament. The Execitive can be removed from his position by the Legislature through a vote of No Confidience or if his political party fails to when a majority, or be a leading party in the coalition, in the next batch of legislative elections. In this case, the Judiciary is not influenced by the members of Parliament of the Executive, it is a clear cut, seperate branch of the government. There are no direct ties, that I know of, between the UK Judiciary and members of Parliment.

In Presidential systems, such as the US, all three branches are truely seperate. The Chief Executive is elected seperatly by the population and is not allowed to be a member of the Legislature. President Obama had to resign as a Senator from Illinois when he won the Presidency. In this case, all three branches are seperate. The President can be removed by the Legislature only through a very complicated Impeachment process otherwise, he can only be removed from office if he fails to win re-election or at the end of some type of predetermined term limit. So President Putin had to sit out a term in office before running again based on the Russian Constituation. In Mexico the President is only allowed to serve one six year term, it is different for every country. In this case, the Judicial Branch is seperate from both the Executive and Legislative branch.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Read what you wrote... "three branches of state" not government... "the other two branches are the executive, or the government, and the legislature." You say that it is an arm of the state along with the government etc which means it isn't the government... You just managed to prove what you were trying to disprove...

Correct. And the legislative is not part of the government either. By their definition, the government is the executive only. Most other democratic places in the world, the government is seen to be three branchs, executive, legislative, and judicial. The difference is in the definitions of state and government. Most would equate state with government.