[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Perhaps you should write to the judge and instruct him in British law.


Being outside the jurisdiction of the court goes to enforcement. The British court has no way of enjoining the operators to stop infringeing, hence the alternative approach of blocking access.

Edit: This came across more snide than intended. It is a fact that a British judge has found these websites to infringe copyright under UK law. You might disagree with that conclusion as a matter of principle, or feel that part of the reasoning was flawed, but as it stands, it has been found that they do infringe.

The websites were not the Defendants, so how is it possible that they be found guilty?

From a previous post:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I'd also point out (again) that mobileread.com also facilitates copyright violation in the UK. I doubt any disclaimers saying "only download if you are legally entitled in your country" would suffice as a defence, even if the site were allowed to put forward a case.

From the judge:

The Court held that the operators of websites communicated the sound recordings to the public as they actively intervened in making the copyrighted sound recordings available to the public.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Why should websites that distribute materials that are illegal in the UK be accessible there? The UK judge is not trying to doing anything to prevent the websites from operating in their countries. By blocking the websites the UK is doing the website's job for them -- the website should make sure that only those that live in jurisdictions where it is legal to view the materials can actually view the files.

I'm not saying that the websites should be available in the UK. But the Defendants were the ISPs, not the websites.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The authors get paid to pass on their copyright, just as workers get paid to work. The ability to monetize their effort is freedom not slavery. An author decides to let a publisher handle his book rather than market it himself and receives a payment. It is one of the options available to authors and the author made that decision on his own free will. What is wrong with that, if a painter sells a painting, is that slavery, too?

An author could let a publisher handle his book without selling the copyright, just like I can work for a company without selling myself as a slave. If it would be legal for companies to own slaves very few people would be free.