Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
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.
|
So you actually think that if you can't serve somebody then any case is unfair... great defence against crimes... I'll do what I want then flee the jurisdiction and carry on committing crimes by remote in your jurisdiction... did you read the full judgement relating to the inability to contact TPB owners... do you seriously mean that because of that, there should be no action to take because "it's not fair, if they can't defend themselves..." when they've made the choice to move out of their home country and scatter round the world... your opinion may be that the process was unfair but that tends to make your opinion, at the best, incredibly naive... there have been many court cases where defendants are not present (usually by their choice) and nobody denies their legality so what's so special about running a "pirate" site that requires the owners get special treatment when thay can't be bothered to defend themselves in courts anyway...