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

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Or just hiring a squad of commandos to raid and torch the place. Pass the marshmallows.

Already been done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_raid

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you really believe that there is a significant amount of legal content tracked via TPB? When the criminals who operate the site were on trial in Sweden, their lawyer tried that argument. When asked to provide a sample of legal material that was tracked by the site, he was unable to find a single example .

Can you give us a link to an example of legal content on TPB?

I've downloaded public domain texts from Torrents. I think the last one was De Administrando Imperio, the Banduri edition from 1711. I can't find the link now for the life of me.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

No,

Cite? The British judge seemed to think it was illegal in the UK.

but that doesn't stop us from shipping people over to America to be locked up for linking to websites that contain unauthorised TV shows.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneratio...-website/13370

[Keroberos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you really believe that there is a significant amount of legal content tracked via TPB?

Actually, there is no content--legal or illegal--being tracked via TPB, they haven't had a tracker since 17 Nov, 2009, and they're getting rid of .torrent files too.

[afv011]

I think that, at the end of the day, this does more harm than good, in the sense that it brings lots of publicity to the site (TPB in this case), and blocking access to a site is next to impossible; there are plenty of ways around.

[SteveEisenberg]

This ruling doesn't horrify me. I do suspect that, on balance, it will reduce piracy, a good thing.

My biggest objection is that it will give cover to regimes blocking web sites for political reasons. No to a great firewall of the British Isles! I'd rather see them fine users who download copyrighted material, or, push their internet download speed to the dial-up range. That would really make the punishment fit the offence, since people who download video content without paying for it are slowing down the internet for others. Of course, illegal book downloading requires little bandwidth, so if someone was found doing that, fines are the way to go.

Because of the US tradition against prior restraint, I don't expect to see this in my country.

[Ekaros]

So who's the next big name more regular people go to? If they realy want to pirate, they do pirate. It's not like TPB is only site out there...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ekaros

So who's the next big name more regular people go to? If they realy want to pirate, they do pirate. It's not like TPB is only site out there...

Do you think that "regular people" are pirates? You surely don't support sites like TPB, do you? These are serious criminals, making serious money from other peoples' creative work.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think that "regular people" are pirates? You surely don't support sites like TPB, do you? These are serious criminals, making serious money from other peoples' creative work.

Making serious money from other people's creative work? Sound like any publishers you know? I'm not sure if the US laws against Cartels create applicable criminal offences, so make no comment on this aspect. I suppose at least an author has the chance of receiving some money from a publisher for their work, which can't be said of the Pirate Bay.

Laws and Court Rulings which can't realistically be enforced tend to create a contempt for the law.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Cite? The British judge seemed to think it was illegal in the UK.

If it was illegal he would have been prosecuted here. The only information that is illegal in the UK is all "terrorism" related, and I doubt old episodes of The Simpsons would fall into that category.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you really believe that there is a significant amount of legal content tracked via TPB? When the criminals who operate the site were on trial in Sweden, their lawyer tried that argument. When asked to provide a sample of legal material that was tracked by the site, he was unable to find a single example .

Can you give us a link to an example of legal content on TPB?

First when a person is on trial it seems strange to call him a criminal. Also why do you assume that the same persons that were on trial is running the site now?

And I followed the trial and read the transcripts and I really do not remember that they could not provide a single example. What they had trouble showing was that it was a significant amount of non problematic material.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The UK court shared the view of the Swedish courts who convicted the operators of the site of "aiding" copyright infringement, even though they don't host any infringing material themselves. The entire raison d'être of TPB is to assist others to infringe copyright, while earning the operators large amounts of money in the process.

But the site works differently now so you cannot just assume that if the current runners of the site would be taken to court that they would be convicted.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

But the site works differently now so you cannot just assume that if the current runners of the site would be taken to court that they would be convicted.

It doesn't matter what I do or don't assume. The High Court has taken the view that the site is aiding and promoting copyright infringement, and that was the reason that they granted the court order to block the site.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think that "regular people" are pirates? You surely don't support sites like TPB, do you?

Eh, yes. That is exactly the kind of places regular people go to since they might have trouble finding more closed better places. And yes regular people do download stuff.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It doesn't matter what I do or don't assume. The High Court has taken the view that the site is aiding and promoting copyright infringement, and that was the reason that they granted the court order to block the site.

Yes, but your argument for that was that somebody was convicted a couple of years ago. That argument is not valid for today.