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

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Harlan Elison wasn't best pleased by it, either.

Harlan Elison wasn't pleased about a lot of things.

[piperclassique]

"‘Pirating’ can act as an introduction to an artist’s work. If you like his or her idea, then you will want to have it in your house; a good idea doesn’t need protection.

Doesn't have to be pirating to be an introduction. Many authors will give away one or more books to act as an entry drug. I bought a lot of books after getting one freebie, in more than one series.

BUT, as Harry says, that is the author's choice.

Would you like it if someone came in to your house and read the books in your bookcase? Without asking?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Geralt

It works the same way.

Just saying it doesn't make it true.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nothing at all, but it would be ruinously expensive for the defendant. In a British court, the losing side pays all the legal costs of both sides. It might cost £50,000 for a rights-holder to gather the information needed to prosecute a downloader. Do you think it's fair for a downloader to get a £50,000 judgement against them for downloading 1 song? I would consider it to be grossly disproportionate to the offence, but that would be the result of what you're proposing.

That's only for civil cases. If it was a real crime they would only need to pay for their own defence. Our government of millionaires wants to do away with Legal Aid because they don't want the poor to have access to justice, but that's a different matter.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That's only for civil cases.

Downloading for personal use is a civil offence.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And again I repeat that it's a choice that the individual content creator is free to make. But nobody has the right to take that decision away from him or her. That's the issue that's at stake here. It's fine for Mr. Gaiman to upload his book to a torrent site if that's what he wishes to do. It's not OK for someone else to do it without his permission.

How could he do that if all the torrent sites have been blocked? Why do the rights of people who don't mind being pirated need to be trampled on just to make it easier for people who do mind?

Then there's all the abandoned work, or other things nobody cares about commercially. Why does society need to lose access to those too, just because they were in the same place as a Justin Bieber song?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Downloading for personal use is a civil offence.

There you are then. If it's not serious enough to be a proper crime there's even less reason to censor the internet.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

There you are then. If it's not serious enough to be a proper crime there's even less reason to censor the internet.

The individual downloads are not committing a criminal offence.
The hosting sites potentially are.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The individual downloads are not committing a criminal offence.
The hosting sites potentially are.

Yet they're being blocked? On a "potential" criminal offence?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by afv011

Yet they're being blocked? On a "potential" offence?

The judge decided that they were breaking UK copyright law. This was a civil case, therefore the only question the judge was required to answer was whether or not they were breaking civil law. It would need a criminal trial to determine whether or not they're breaking criminal law, and since the sites in question lie outside the jurisdiction of the British legal system, that's unlikely to occur.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How could he do that if all the torrent sites have been blocked? Why do the rights of people who don't mind being pirated need to be trampled on just to make it easier for people who do mind?

Don't be confused. Rulings like this have nothing to do with the rights of the content creators or society. It has to do with eliminating competition for the middlemen.

You and I would say there's nothing wrong with a content creator choosing to use alternative means of distribution if they wish. However, the entrenched distribution industry would strongly disagree. Piracy is just a red herring, eliminating competition is the real goal.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You and I would say there's nothing wrong with a content creator choosing to use alternative means of distribution if they wish. However, the entrenched distribution industry would strongly disagree. Piracy is just a red herring, eliminating competition is the real goal.

Rubbish.
If creators want to distribute their own content legally, they don't need to use places like ThePirateBay to do it.
Sticking to music, what %age of music content on TPB do you think is legally distributed by its owner?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Rubbish.
If creators want to distribute their own content legally, they don't need to use places like ThePirateBay to do it.

What other site has anywhere near the same footfall as TPB had in its unrestricted days? There's no point having something free if nobody ever sees it.

[mr ploppy]

On a music related note ...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/131005609/JRC79605