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

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And you are forgetting that TPB is profiting from providing that information. So to make this analogy more accurate you would have to add that you are standing at a street corner, showing off some advertising banners and signs and blasting away commercial messages by loudspeaker directed at those that go to buy the drugs after you told them where to get them.

Wasn't the opinion previously in this thread that this does not matter. People supporting the blocking have said that the same court decision would have been made if no money was earned.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Libel on what grounds? What part of the court's judgement do you believe is untrue? If a statement is true, it cannot be libellous.

That depends on the country you are in. In Sweden a statement can be libelous and true at the same time.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

So the question is is it OK for a country to block Wikipeida just because they thing they have pointers to copyrighted material that can be downloaded?

It would be ok to block them if they did it on purpose and on a large scale. Especially if there was an illegal link in virtually every definition.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

Wasn't the opinion previously in this thread that this does not matter. People supporting the blocking have said that the same court decision would have been made if no money was earned.

Even if no money was involved it would not make it legal, but it should make those of you think, who believe the people that run TPB are just a bunch of good hearted idealists. TPB and the other sites wouldn't exist on such a scale if not for money. Without money you would just have the neighborhood kid's blog.

[NightGeometry]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Libel on what grounds? What part of the court's judgement do you believe is untrue? If a statement is true, it cannot be libellous.

Two parts -
a) it wouldn't necessarily need to win, defending libel is vastly expensive in this country. It is economic sabotage.
b) for the indies promoting they do have a valid use - I would imagine the argument would be along the lines of 'our promotional vehicle is being blocked due to piracy, thus the implication is that our material is pirated which in turn implies we did not produce it'
(I wasn't being completely serious with the suggestion, I should have made that more clear)

Originally Posted by tompe

That depends on the country you are in. In Sweden a statement can be libelous and true at the same time.

That just seems mad - surely telling the truth shouldn't be a problem. I imagine the dubious cases are where someone does something illicit but not illegal, and that gets aired? Such as having an affair (accusations of serial adultery, for example).
Sorry - I know this is cultural ignorance, but I am interested in wht may be true and libellous.

[NightGeometry]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It would be ok to block them if they did it on purpose and on a large scale. Especially if there was an illegal link in virtually every definition.

They actually host what is, in the UK at least, copyright material. The high resolution images of paintings from the National Portrait Gallery (I can't find any indication of resolution, but if we are saying accusation of copyright infringement is enough, why couldn't NPG go to court to get Wikipedia blocked by ISPs?). Yes - this is an exaggeration, non-infringing usage and all that.

Wikipedia was also blocked for an image that was considered kiddy porn wasn't it? (That album cover for the Scorpions album Virgin Killer)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by NightGeometry

Wikipedia was also blocked for an image that was considered kiddy porn wasn't it? (That album cover for the Scorpions album Virgin Killer)

The page was blocked; not the whole site.

[NightGeometry]

But editing was blocked, across the whole site. Which for a site such as Wikipedia is pretty annoying. I'd guess similar to if submitting to a forum were blocked, but still reading were allowed. (Different balance I'd imagine).

Just to be clear - I don't think blocking TPB is bad, I do think it is not going to achieve anything, and I don't think the way t was done is wrong, and an insult to our justice system. But yeah, ultimately they exists to provide links to infringing material, so I find it hard to feel much sympathy...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by NightGeometry

Just to be clear - I don't think blocking TPB is bad, I do think it is not going to achieve anything, and I don't think the way t was done is wrong, and an insult to our justice system. But yeah, ultimately they exists to provide links to infringing material, so I find it hard to feel much sympathy...

I'm a little confused now. If you don't think that blocking TPB is bad, and you don't think the way it was done was wrong either, what exactly is it that you're disagreeing with?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by NightGeometry

That just seems mad - surely telling the truth shouldn't be a problem. I imagine the dubious cases are where someone does something illicit but not illegal, and that gets aired? Such as having an affair (accusations of serial adultery, for example).
Sorry - I know this is cultural ignorance, but I am interested in wht may be true and libellous.

The thing you say have to have some public interest also. If you for example know that you non-famous neighbour used drugs 20 years ago than it can be libel to publish that even if it is true. There was no public interest to spread that information. Having an affair would be another case unless it is a famous person were you can show that there is a public interest,

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

The thing you say have to have some public interest also. If you for example know that you non-famous neighbour used drugs 20 years ago than it can be libel to publish that even if it is true. There was no public interest to spread that information. Having an affair would be another case unless it is a famous person were you can show that there is a public interest,

That's interesting. In English law, "truth" is an absolute defence against libel. No true statement can be held to be libellous. There are other laws which may apply, however, such as those governing invasion of privacy.

[NightGeometry]

Originally Posted by NightGeometry

Just to be clear - I don't think blocking TPB is bad, I do think it is not going to achieve anything, and I don't think the way t was done is wrong...

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm a little confused now. If you don't think that blocking TPB is bad, and you don't think the way it was done was wrong either, what exactly is it that you're disagreeing with?

That should have read "and I do think the way it was done is wrong". I'm just being a bit slow today.

But also - do I need to disagree in order to post?

[Rizla]

What concerns me is that the savings being made by the purveyors of content is not being passed onto consumers. When consumers steal, it is called theft, but when corporations over-charge, it's called good business. People who are profiting from this unequal situation will support it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rizla

What concerns me is that the savings being made by the purveyors of content is not being passed onto consumers. When consumers steal, it is called theft, but when corporations over-charge, it's called good business. People who are profiting from this unequal situation will support it.

I'm supporting it because it's high time that someone did something about the thieving scum who run these pirate sites. As a small independent software developer it's impossible for me to do anything myself, but I'm delighted to see the big players taking action. Everybody wins (except the thieves, of course). Let's hope that this is merely the first of many such cases.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm supporting it because it's high time that someone did something about the thieving scum who run these pirate sites. As a small independent software developer it's impossible for me to do anything myself, but I'm delighted to see the big players taking action. Everybody wins (except the thieves, of course). Let's hope that this is merely the first of many such cases.

Stealing is bad, whether by consumers or by purveyors. Corporations are stealing by not passing on savings. You can't have it both ways. Good luck with your business.