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

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I suspect you'd struggle to convince anyone that the primary purpose of MR is to facilitate copyright infringement, which is unquestionably the case with these sites that have been blocked. The test that courts have applied for many years in cases of this nature is "does the site" (or whatever) "have any significant non-infringing use". It probably wouldn't be too tough to convince someone that MR does have non-infringing uses, but you'd struggle to show that any of the sites that have been blocked do.

Once they've got rid of all the alleged "primary purpose" infringing sites do you really think they will stop there?

Anyway, without any way for the sites in question to defend themselves it will be whatever the claimant states that matters, not the truth.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Once they've got rid of all the alleged "primary purpose" infringing sites do you really think they will stop there?

Anyway, without any way for the sites in question to defend themselves it will be whatever the claimant states that matters, not the truth.

Judges in IP courts are experts in the field - this isn't left to the whim of an ignorant jury; I'm sure they're entirely capable of making sensible decisions, and, like any other court case, there is an appeals process should anyone adversely affected by it believe that there's been a miscarriage of justice. But you're not seriously suggesting that these aren't pirate sites, are you?

[Turtle91]

I don't think they were arguing about these particular sites. I think the argument was the process they used...the "defendants" weren't allowed to present their side of the case. If they can do that to any one site it sets a precedent that they can do it to any other site, simply based on a complaint, rather than on a trial. That kind of precedent can easily lead to unwarranted censorship.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Judges in IP courts are experts in the field - this isn't left to the whim of an ignorant jury; I'm sure they're entirely capable of making sensible decisions, and, like any other court case, there is an appeals process should anyone adversely affected by it believe that there's been a miscarriage of justice. But you're not seriously suggesting that these aren't pirate sites, are you?

I think you're overstating the court process here.

The order was made by a court, but not by an adversarial trial process. The Pirate Bay was given no opportunity to make an argument as the blocking was ordered via application process. This also means that normal legal defences were not available to the Pirate Bay.

You might like the outcome, but the process used to get there was totally inappropriate; it's not appropriate when a website can be blocked with no one from the website or elsewhere in a position to challenge or question it.

People in the UK should find very little comfort in your argument that, "oh well, judges know what they're doing I guess."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

You might like the outcome, but the process used to get there was totally inappropriate; it's not appropriate when a website can be blocked with no one from the website or elsewhere in a position to challenge or question it.

It was the process that the law has mandated should be used, and due process of law was followed. As a lawyer, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of due process.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But you're not seriously suggesting that these aren't pirate sites, are you?

No idea, I've never heard of any of them. But I've never seen a "pirate" site yet that doesn't have legal/promo content, and laws already exist to have any infringing material removed from them.

I'm more worried about things like this to be honest, and this new ruling is another step towards making it easier.

http://www.infowars.com/government-o...rotest-videos/

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It was the process that the law has mandated should be used, and due process of law was followed. As a lawyer, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of due process.

I do, more than most it would seem.

However, I also understand that not all laws are just and some laws can be applied in a way that leads to injustice. Ordering a site censored for instance without providing for the opportunity for an adversarial process that weighs evidence presented by both sides, the legal arguments (including proportionality) and the utility to the public is, in all honesty, disgusting.

I like to use sarcasm and (on occasion) hyperbole to make my points in an (occasionally) amusing way. However, I am completely serious when I say: I think it is both unfortunate and gross that you're trying to justify a process you know isn't right because you like the result.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

No idea, I've never heard of any of them. But I've never seen a "pirate" site yet that doesn't have legal/promo content, and laws already exist to have any infringing material removed from them.

Really?
How is a UK content owner able to use the law to successfully remove material from TPB, H33T, or similar?

Edit: The about page of TPB used to include (may still do):

"Only torrent files are saved at the server. That means no copyrighted and/or illegal material are stored by us. It is therefore not possible to hold the people behind The Pirate Bay responsible for the material that is being spread using the tracker. Any complaints from copyright and/or lobby organisations will be ridiculed and published at the site."

And the 'Legal Threats' page ended:

"No action (except ridiculing the senders) has been taken by us because of these. :-)

Nice graphs for the law firms who don't get the hint above:

(we used to have a nice graph here, but it's simpler to just say: 0 torrents has been removed, and 0 torrents will ever be removed.)"

Doesn't sound like there are legal means, does it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I like to use sarcasm and (on occasion) hyperbole to make my points in an (occasionally) amusing way. However, I am completely serious when I say: I think it is both unfortunate and gross that you're trying to justify a process you know isn't right because you like the result.

But I do think that it's right. I think it's absolutely right. And so does the law, regardless of your opinion on the subject. As a lawyer, I'm surprised that you would think that supporting the law is "unfortunate and gross".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

No idea, I've never heard of any of them. But I've never seen a "pirate" site yet that doesn't have legal/promo content, and laws already exist to have any infringing material removed from them.

These sites ignore takedown requests - that's why they are blocked, and sites which respect copyright laws are not.

[murraypaul]

I have to say that I don't think the legal position is 'right' (morally correct), although it is legally correct. Although the sites are not defendents, they are clearly third parties who will be materially affected by the orders, and should have the right to be represented at the hearing.
I don't think it would have made the slightest difference for any of these four sites, but there is a real slippery slope concern.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But I do think that it's right. I think it's absolutely right. And so does the law, regardless of your opinion on the subject. As a lawyer, I'm surprised that you would think that supporting the law is "unfortunate and gross".

Being a lawyer doesn't mean mindlessly accepting a law as just only because it's a law. If the law said that Canadian Aboriginals should be forcibly concentrated into residential schools (which it did), that would not be a just law and I would oppose it on the grounds that it is not just, and would assist the victims of that law (which I did).

Following the law because it is the law is one thing, blindly supporting it because it is the law is a road that leads to fascism and is disgusting.

[HarryT]

I don't "blindly support it because it is the law"; I support it because blocking access to sites which exist purely for the purpose of flouting copyright law seems to me to be a right and proper thing to do.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't "blindly support it because it is the law"; I support it because blocking access to sites which exist purely for the purpose of flouting copyright law seems to me to be a right and proper thing to do.

But what if the judge made an incorrect decision and because there was no defendant to say otherwise, an innocent site gets blocked. Would you think the law just and fair then?

If you take away due process, you may as well take away innocent until proven guilty.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But what if the judge made an incorrect decision and because there was no defendant to say otherwise, an innocent site gets blocked. Would you think the law just and fair then?

No, of course not; that's why there is an appeals process. No legal system is right 100% of the time. But I don't believe there has been any miscarriage of justice here - do you?

If you take away due process, you may as well take away innocent until proven guilty.

I entirely agree, but due process HAS been followed here.