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

[afv011]

Originally Posted by bla

I would suspect that BT are trying to work out how to do the impossible...

Indeed, it's a cat and mouse game, and the ISPs are facing a lost battle from the beginning.

[Ninjalawyer]

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.

I understand, you support it because you like the result. I'm just asking that you separate in your mind the result from the process used to get there; you can support one without supporting the other.

It's trite but true: The ends don't justify the means.

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're arguing about formal due process when everyone else is arguing about substantive due process (I'm Canadian rather than American, so I'd probably call it fundamental justice, but the principle is the same). No one is arguing that the formal process hasn't been followed, they're arguing that the formal process violates the idea of fundamental justice.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by 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

Unlike the US, where IP cases are heard by judges who probably do indeed know little if anything about the internet, and ridiculous damages are awarded by juries on a whim, the UK has specialist intellectual property courts where the judge is an expert in the field. So although I'd agree with you in general about British judges, it's not a fair judgement in these specific cases.

[Turtle91]

What would you say if "an expert in their field" judge decided that MR should be banned based on a claim that people were learning how to create and edit ePubs, and they could use that knowledge to change a copyrighted work.

"Experts in their field" are, in my experience, not really expert. They just have experience. Rarely do they know all the intricacies involved. That's why it is important to allow the different parties to present their cases. Then an experienced judge can make an informed decision based on the law and the arguments as given. If a judge bases all the decisions on his opinion/experience, then there is a much greater possibility of error.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

"Experts in their field" are, in my experience, not really expert. They just have experience. Rarely do they know all the intricacies involved. That's why it is important to allow the different parties to present their cases. Then an experienced judge can make an informed decision based on the law and the arguments as given. If a judge bases all the decisions on his opinion/experience, then there is a much greater possibility of error.

I entirely agree with you.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I entirely agree with you.

So then why don't you agree that there should be a proper trial with defendant if these sites deem that's what they want?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So then why don't you agree that there should be a proper trial with defendant if these sites deem that's what they want?

Because these are sites which have thumbed their noses at the law for goodness knows how many years. To complain that they are being unfairly treated by that same law which they have ignored for years strikes me as somewhat ludicrous. They have shown nothing but contempt for the law, but the process of the law HAS been followed to block them.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because these are sites which have thumbed their noses at the law for goodness knows how many years. To complain that they are being unfairly treated by that same law which they have ignored for years strikes me as somewhat ludicrous. They have shown nothing but contempt for the law, but the process of the law HAS been followed to block them.

Every crook/criminal should have his/her day in court regardless of the crime. What you are saying is that they've been found guilty before being proven so. That's just wrong and it always will be.

If someone thought you committed a crime and you did not, would you not mind that you've been found guilty without a chance to get your day in court to prove otherwise?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because these are sites which have thumbed their noses at the law for goodness knows how many years. To complain that they are being unfairly treated by that same law which they have ignored for years strikes me as somewhat ludicrous. They have shown nothing but contempt for the law, but the process of the law HAS been followed to block them.

Which UK law have they thumbed their nose at? The internet says they all acted on American DMCA notices, even though as you say they have no need to, so I can't really see why they would ignore any comparable UK requirements.

http://torrentfreak.com/top-torrent-...google-120604/

[SeaKing]

Turtle91
Indeed, a person might claim he is only collecting and preparing kindling out in the wood pile while a vampire may claim the person is preparing pieces of wood that might be easily converted into dangerous stakes and want the law to make the person cease and desist such acts.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Which UK law have they thumbed their nose at? The internet says they all acted on American DMCA notices, even though as you say they have no need to, so I can't really see why they would ignore any comparable UK requirements.

http://torrentfreak.com/top-torrent-...google-120604/

Don't bother. HarryT was insisting a page or two back that these sites had the opportunity to defend themselves in court but don't bother too (a statement that is not correct in the case of the Pirate Bay). He's simply not interested in facts that might put a damper on his "team's" victory celebration.

As long as the law dots all of the Is, crosses all of the Ts, and fills out all of the required forms in triplicate, it's all perfectly fine. It doesn't matter that the process itself would fit right in a Kafka novel as long as all of the correct bureaucratic hoops were duly jumped through.

Today's moral: It doesn't matter how your team wins as long as they win.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Which UK law have they thumbed their nose at? The internet says they all acted on American DMCA notices, even though as you say they have no need to, so I can't really see why they would ignore any comparable UK requirements.

http://torrentfreak.com/top-torrent-...google-120604/

'The Internet says' isn't a great argument.
TPB ignored all URL removal requests in any form, as your own link says.
H33T requires the complainer to pay $50 per URL removed.

65. Steps to prevent infringement. Each of the Websites purports to maintain a content removal policy which claims to provide for the removal of copyrighted content from the website upon receipt of a relevant notification. The reality appears to be that these policies are mere window-dressing, and that the operators of the Websites do not take any meaningful steps to prevent the widespread infringements of copyright which take place.

66. This is demonstrated by BPI's attempts to invoke these policies. As Mr Hodge explains, BPI tested the policies by sending URL notifications to each of the Websites in respect of a number of recordings. The results showed that the policies were not properly implemented and were in practice ineffective. Thus:

i) In respect of KAT, 76% of the notified URLs remained accessible via the website some six months after the notifications were given.

ii) In respect of H33T , 83% remained accessible as at the same date. It is a striking feature of the H33T policy that it requires a fee of $50 per URL. Unsurprisingly, BPI did not offer to pay this. That is perhaps why the operators responded to the notifications by saying that they did not comply with the policy. It is inconceivable that the operators could have any serious expectation that such a fee would be paid. It serves to emphasise the cosmetic nature of the "policy".

iii) In respect of Fenopy, 25% remained accessible as at the same date.

67. The extent to which the removal of URLs which did occur was a response to the notifications or was coincidental is unknown. As described below, further attempts to secure the co-operation of the operators of the Websites in the removal of infringing content have proved futile.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

'The Internet says' isn't a great argument.
TPB ignored all URL removal requests in any form, as your own link says.
H33T requires the complainer to pay $50 per URL removed.

Yes, TPB has a different approach. They also have the word "Pirate" in their name. But the others have removed URLs.

And the Copyright Office charges $135 for Copyright infringement claims, so your complaint is that H33T requires less money?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Yes, TPB has a different approach. They also have the word "Pirate" in their name. But the others have removed URLs.

And the Copyright Office charges $135 for Copyright infringement claims, so your complaint is that H33T requires less money?

This isn't charging to file a legal claim, it is charging to process the equivalent of a DMCA takedown.
[Edit: See next post]

The content available on the H33T website is extensive. As at 6 July 2012, its index listed 241,477 torrent files. Dr Price's analysis of its distribution between different categories of content indicates that 21.04% of torrent files available on the H33T website fell within the music category. Dr Price has then analysed the proportion of this content which is commercially available (and therefore highly likely to be protected by copyright). In the music category, 97.1% of the torrent files related to content which is commercially available. Applying these percentages to the total number of torrents available as at 6 July 2012, this analysis implies that 50,806 music torrents were listed on the H33T website, of which around 49,330 were commercially available.

So that would be just under $2.5 million dollars to remove all the links to infringing music (just music, nothing else) on H33T.
Does that sound like a scheme they genuinely expect content holders to take part in?
Google process something like 4 million DMCA takedowns a week.
At the same rate of charging, that would be $10 billion dollars a year.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And the Copyright Office charges $135 for Copyright infringement claims, so your complaint is that H33T requires less money?

What you have linked to is nothing to do with filing an infringement case, it is a one-off fee for an OSP to designate who should be notified when a case is filed against them.
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/