Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
I'm witholding my judgement until I find out who put forward the defence argument for the people who used TPB for promotional purposes. A judge who only hears evidence from the prosecution is unlikely to form a balanced judgement.
|
No one put forward a defense argument in this case because the lawsuit was against the ISPs who had no interest in wasting money defending The Pirate Bay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
And that was the case here. A judge looked at the evidence and determined - very properly - that TPB were guilty of encouraging and facilitating copyright infringement. Do you disagree with that finding?
|
I disagree with the process whereby, in a civil case, the public can be denied access to a website and where the website owner isn't able to provide any arguments or cross-examine. I think that censorship is harmful and should only done where:
(ii) the website owner has been served and added as a party; and
(ii) the court has conducted a balancing exercise to determine the harm caused by the website in question versus the harm caused by censoring it.
Representatives from The Pirate Bay may not have shown up to court, but it giving them the choice before they are sanctioned seems pretty fundamental to a fair and just process to me. And even if they were served and didn't show up, the court should still have undertaken a balancing exercise to balance the harm to copyrightholders versus harm to the public caused by censorship.
I wouldn't have an issue with the result if a fair process were used, but in my opinion the process wasn't fair.
I'm sure now Stonetools will now accuse me of being a secret pirate, a secret communist and maybe the person who really killed JFK.