Have you read the Judge's conclusion, Mike?
Quote:
|
Conclusion. In my judgment, the operators of TPB do authorise its users' infringing acts of copying and communication to the public. They go far beyond merely enabling or assisting. On any view, they "sanction, approve and countenance" the infringements of copyright committed by its users. But in my view they also purport to grant users the right to do the acts complained of. It is no defence that they openly defy the rights of the copyright owners. I would add that I consider the present case to be indistinguishable from 20C Fox v Newzbin in this respect. If anything, it is a stronger case.
|
This seems like a pretty damning judgement, and one which fully merits action. The fact that there are other criminals committing similar crimes does not mean that action should not be taken against these particular ones, surely?