High Court orders British ISPs to block "The Pirate Bay"

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by darryl

Making serious money from other people's creative work? Sound like any publishers you know?

Publishers pay authors for the right to use publish the authors' creative works, and the authors voluntarily give them that right.

That's quite a bit different from just taking someone's work without their permission and making money off of it. And the false equivalency between publishers and pirates is just silly - you might as well equate car thieves and car dealers, since both make money from the car manufacturer.

I'm not sure if the US laws against Cartels create applicable criminal offences, so make no comment on this aspect. I suppose at least an author has the chance of receiving some money from a publisher for their work, which can't be said of the Pirate Bay.

I'm not sure what this means - but of course authors receive money from publishers; that's kind of the point.

Laws and Court Rulings which can't realistically be enforced tend to create a contempt for the law.

This may be true, although it remains to be seen whether it can be enforced. We've had laws against theft since time immemorial, but theft hasn't been eliminated yet. But I haven't seen any call to decriminalize theft yet. (Although at common law it was punishable by death if the amount involved was greater than 12 pence, so it is the case that the penalty has been dramatically reduced).

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

People got 4 years in prison for expressing anti-government views on Facebook not so long ago. One of the magistrates actually said they were under oders from the government to give them harsh penalties, but then retracted that statement a few days later (reasons unknown ...)

What... cite example??? The only cases I've seen that sound anything like your claim concerned calls and attempts to organise rioting to cover violent crimes or encouraging/inciting terrorism???

And what odours "oders [sic]" were the government smelling...

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

In Canada, the judiciary is one of three branches of government, although it is given independence from the other two branches by Canada's constitution. This is not different than the UK system for obvious historical reasons. If the interpretation by the judiciary of laws passed by the legislative branch of government results in censorship in-fact, I don't see how the distinction you're trying to make is relevant; the result is the same in any event.

Also, just for your own information (should it come up in trivia), Canada's form of government is actually a constitutional monarchy.

Read... you are confusing TWO things... I HAVE NOT STATED THAT THESE ACTIONS ARE NOT CENSORSHIP... clear... I have stated that the action is NOT Government controlled but JUDICIAL... the Judiciary acts in line with the laws of the land (which are enacted by the actual elected government) but it can independently modify them by interpretation and establishing precedent... Oh and you've also made my point about Judiciary and Government being separate as you actually state it above...

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Read... you are confusing TWO things... I HAVE NOT STATED THAT THESE ACTIONS ARE NOT CENSORSHIP... clear... I have stated that the action is NOT Government controlled but JUDICIAL... the Judiciary acts in line with the laws of the land (which are enacted by the actual elected government) but it can independently modify them by interpretation and establishing precedent... Oh and you've also made my point about Judiciary and Government being separate as you actually state it above...

I'm not exactly sure why you bothered to make your original point then, or continue to throw a fit if you're agreeing with me that it is censorship in any event. And with respect, what I said was that the judiciary was a separate branch of government, although this distinction seems irrelevant to the point anyway. I follow your point, just not why you're so insistent on making it if you agree it is a pointless distinction.

If the government enacted a law that said they could seize websites following a secret judicial process, then the fact that that process was followed to the letter would not make it any less censorship. Since you already agree with that though, I'm sure we can move on.

--------------------------

Argument Pro-Tip: The use of all-caps to highlight important passages in your argument is both helpful to and appreciated by the person that you are arguing with. The use of all caps is in no way seen as rude or childish or as suggesting that you are anything but a learned internet scholar. The more often you can use all caps, the better.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by jmaejr

TPB is 'Google for torrents', they index other public sites.

Taking them down will do nothing, it will only stop or slow down the the casual 'pirate'.

Which is it, it can't be both?
Slowing down or stopping casual pirates isn't nothing.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Which is it, it can't be both?
Slowing down or stopping casual pirates isn't nothing.

Agreed, that alone makes it worth while. And it will make it more difficult for the site to make money and scare similar sites. A clear win-win.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Agreed, that alone makes it worth while. And it will make it more difficult for the site to make money and scare similar sites. A clear win-win.

Unless you think suppressing free speech causes more harm than making piracy marginally more difficult. But if you're not bothered by that, then win-win indeed.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Unless you think suppressing free speech causes more harm than making piracy marginally more difficult. But if you're not bothered by that, then win-win indeed.

I don't see The Pirate Bay as having anything to do with free speech. It is a website specifically for illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.

[jmaejr]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I don't see The Pirate Bay as having anything to do with free speech. It is a website specifically for illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.

If that is its sole purpose...then why are members here going to TPB for.....ahem...cough...cough...Linux distributions....and other legal software?

I am certain they know full well what TPB is about. There are other legal torrent sites that host Linux distributions....

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I don't see The Pirate Bay as having anything to do with free speech. It is a website specifically for illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.

Whether or not you like the content of The Pirate Bay, its content clearly is speech, so the freedom to express it has everything to do with free speech; the argument that it's not is a non-starter. This is particularly the case with the Pirate Bay as they're hosting no files and do in fact have non-infringing sections (e.g. The Promo Bay).

Now if you'd said that you think blocking the UK public from viewing The Pirate Bay is a reasonable limit to free speech in the UK, I would disagree but would respect that you have a defensible position. Of course, then I would point out that even if you agree with blocking The Pirate Bay, you should admit that this case sets some disturbing precedent with respect to a party being able to sue another party to block a website from public access.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by jmaejr

If that is its sole purpose...then why are members here going to TPB for.....ahem...cough...cough...Linux distributions....and other legal software?

I am certain they know full well what TPB is about. There are other legal torrent sites that host Linux distributions....

They can always open a new site "TheLinuxBay". I am not quite sure it would attract the same crowd. Well, when legal links are less than 1%, you have a pretty good case to close them down.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Whether or not you like the content of The Pirate Bay, its content clearly is speech . . .

Your post is clearly speech. The web site of the Swedish Pirate Party, which provides intellectual justification for the likes of the Pirate Bay, is speech.

The Pirate Bay is piracy.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I don't see The Pirate Bay as having anything to do with free speech. It is a website specifically for illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.

There are two words that are archaic in your paragraph, illegal and copyrighted.

[Keroberos]

This kinda makes me laugh.

Last week the UK High Court ruled that several of the country’s leading ISPs must block subscriber access to The Pirate Bay. The decision is designed to limit traffic to the world’s leading BitTorrent site but in the short-term it had the opposite effect. Yesterday, The Pirate Bay had 12 million more visitors than it has ever had, providing a golden opportunity to educate users on how to circumvent blocks. “We should write a thank you letter to the BPI,” a site insider told TorrentFreak.

Talk about having the exact opposite effect then the one that was intended .

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

There are two words that are archaic in your paragraph, illegal and copyrighted.

I expected nothing less from you!