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

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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?

I know there have been miscarriages of justice. But we are talking about a law that does not allow due process which is a miscarriage of justice just because of that.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

The UK took away the presumption of innocence for both terrorism and internet downloading a few years ago. You're now presumed guilty upon accusation unless you can prove otherwise. Saves lots of money, apparently.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I know there have been miscarriages of justice. But we are talking about a law that does not allow due process which is a miscarriage of justice just because of that.

I don't understand your argument. Due process HAS been followed here. Nobody (other than you) is saying otherwise. You may of course not agree with the law (that's your prerogative, of course), but it has been followed correctly.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't understand your argument. Due process HAS been followed here. Nobody (other than you) is saying otherwise. You may of course not agree with the law (that's your prerogative, of course), but it has been followed correctly.

Have the people behind these sites been contacted so they can have their defense if they want? If not, due process was avoided and the law is a farce.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

Why waste time and money on DMCA takedowns when this is easier and more permanant? It's not as if all those independent creators using those sites for promotional purposes matter is it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Have the people behind these sites been contacted so they can have their defense if they want? If not, due process was avoided and the law is a farce.

I don't think you understand what the phrase "due process" means. It means "correctly following the procedures specified by the law". That was done in this case.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Why waste time and money on DMCA takedowns when this is easier and more permanant? It's not as if all those independent creators using those sites for promotional purposes matter is it?

Two problems:

1. The "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" only applies to web sites which fall under the jurisdiction of US law. These sites do not. (None of them is hosted in the US.)

2. These are sites which have a long and proven track-record of ignoring take-down notices.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't think you understand what the phrase "due process" means. It means "correctly following the procedures specified by the law". That was done in this case.

Due Process is the idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. It is not fair when the defendant is not allowed to be there in court to put up a defense.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Due Process is thee idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair.

No, it simply means that the legal processes specified by the law must be FOLLOWED. Don't take my word for it - look it up for yourself.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Two problems:

1. The "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" only applies to web sites which fall under the jurisdiction of US law. These sites do not. (None of them is hosted in the US.)

2. These are sites which have a long and proven track-record of ignoring take-down notices.

But are these sites being contacted to let them know that they are under review and may be banned in the UK so they can send a representative (if they want) to defend themselves?

[usuallee]

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.

Agreed. It's a slippery slope, guys. The fact that the alleged infringing and now blocked sites were not allowed to defend themselves is alarming. This is a case where the harm far out weighs any supposed benefits.

I don't agree with unauthorized downloading, but I don't want to live in a police state just because some morons, who wouldn't have paid anyway, downloaded some movies or TV shows.

I will always contend, until someone can actually prove otherwise, that the internet has been a net gain for content creators because the increased exposure and opportunity to peddle their wares more than offsets any freeloaders. Just look at the ever-increasing array of content being made available.

So since no one has been demonstrably harmed, there are no need for such kneejerk, draconian measures (even assuming such measures actually work, when there is no proof such actions as the one being discussed will actually decrease piracy).

[TGS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it simply means that the legal processes specified by the law must be FOLLOWED. Don't take my word for it - look it up for yourself.

Merriam-Webster says that due process is:

A) a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles —called also procedural due process

B) a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual —called also substantive due process.

Legal proceedings carried out fairly and in accord with established rules and principles.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it simply means that the legal processes specified by the law must be FOLLOWED. Don't take my word for it - look it up for yourself.

You use it differently than those of us over here.

In the US, it's proscribed in our founding documents - it applies to a larger scope than following the process outlined in any given law. Those laws themselves must provide for due process.

[bla]

You gotta remember that judges in the uk live in their own little universe I doubt any of them have any idea what the internet is and even less idea about the underlying technology.. I would suspect that BT are trying to work out how to do the impossible I reckon they will be back in court "tout suite" trying to explain technical reality to the be-wigged old duffers.. I wish them good luck with that... lol

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And the point of my update is that they have now blocked the next three most notorious ones. After that, they'll block the next ones.

But since they will never run out of torrent sites, what difference does it make?

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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

The material isn't on those sites.

Originally Posted by HarryT

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?

Does that work in this case? The sites are not the defendants, so how can they appeal?