[Turtle91]

I can't really argue what the site's in question may or may not have done. I don't use those sites - and am not familiar with how they work, other than what has bee talked about here. From what I understand these sites do not actually distribute or store illegal/copyright material, they facilitate the distribution between individuals by maintaining a list of addresses on where to get said material. Is that about it??

The court ordered Internet Service Providers to block access to these sites because of a claim filed by the "aggrieved". This overt censorship is justified because the "site has a proven record of infringing the right holder's intellectual property rights." I would be very hesitant to use the word "proven" unless it has in fact been "proven". From a legal standpoint that would mean that it has been through the legal process of a trial where evidence is presented for and against and decided upon by a judge, would it not?? Any lawyer's out there to clarify that point?

I am certainly NOT defending the activities of these sites...those kinds of activities are definitely wrong...but I am even more against what appears to be blind censorship on the part of a government judicial system...and by blind I mean not allowing both sides to argue their case - no disrespect to any site-challenged who may be reading this. [edit: I didn't really just say that did I...must be time to go to bed!]