View Single Post
Old 03-08-2013, 02:24 PM   #487
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
Consider this: if a website is under the jurisdiction of the court, would the court still use this process?
No, they would sue to get the site itself taken down.

See Newzbin (1): http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.../2010/608.html
The site then relocated outside the juristiction and reopened, leading to Newzbin (2): http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1981.html, which in turn lead to the cases being discussed here.

Quote:
And here we see the wonderful world of copyright: a right of the corporations, not of the authors.
You think authors were happy that 433,343 of their works were being illegally shared on H33T?
And H33T is a profit making organisation. A corporation, really.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote