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

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Then why did Microsoft take such drastic measures as online registration and activation for every individual copy, all but eliminating Windows and Office piracy? I travel in countries where they use plenty of pirated copies. But all old versions like Windows XP. Few dare to use the Windows 7 copies, apparently they are seriously messed up. Besides, Microsoft used their official connections in China to enforce that every computer must be shipped with an official copy of Windows (or with some other OS installed).

Actually, Windows 7 was cracked long before it was officially released and is no more bothersome to install than any other version of the OS. I believe much the same goes for Office 2010.

Edit: I feel somewhat redundant after no.guru got there first, in a comprehensive manner.

[HansTWN]

Just because those "cracked versions" are displayed up there doesn't mean they actual work. Perhaps to the next update (remember "genuine windows advantage"?), if a downloader is very lucky. What usually is up there are highly unstable beta versions, that are also virus infested. I have seen some idiots using these Windows 7 copies. They reformatted their HDs every 3 months, at least! So it where I observe it, the downloaders prefer the ancient Windows and Office versions.

Besides, the premise was that Microsoft likes piracy and does nothing to stop it. I think we have clearly shown that not to be the case. They have been quite successful, not that they have completely stopped it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And the public has not been harmed.

Lots of independent musicans have though. Not as much as they were with the Megaupload execution, of course, since TPB don't have any plans to pay them for downloads like Mega* did. But they will still suffer lower audience figures and lower merchandise sales. Will the BPI compensate them out of the extra £10 billion they are obviously going to make now that TPB is dead and nobody can download the latest manufactured pop sensation?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by elcreative

So you actually think that if you can't serve somebody then any case is unfair... great defence against crimes... I'll do what I want then flee the jurisdiction and carry on committing crimes by remote in your jurisdiction... did you read the full judgement relating to the inability to contact TPB owners... do you seriously mean that because of that, there should be no action to take because "it's not fair, if they can't defend themselves..." when they've made the choice to move out of their home country and scatter round the world... your opinion may be that the process was unfair but that tends to make your opinion, at the best, incredibly naive... there have been many court cases where defendants are not present (usually by their choice) and nobody denies their legality so what's so special about running a "pirate" site that requires the owners get special treatment when thay can't be bothered to defend themselves in courts anyway...

Elcreative, you're confusing civil and criminal law. In civil law (copyright and patent falls under civil law), you must be served before you can be sued. Deadbeat dads (in some cases, very rich deadbeat dads) avoid child support suits by always dodging the process server. (This is US law, other countries laws vary wildly...)

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Lots of independent musicans have though. Not as much as they were with the Megaupload execution, of course, since TPB don't have any plans to pay them for downloads like Mega* did. But they will still suffer lower audience figures and lower merchandise sales. Will the BPI compensate them out of the extra £10 billion they are obviously going to make now that TPB is dead and nobody can download the latest manufactured pop sensation?

Well, why don't they go public and detail their losses? Since TPB is so important to them they should speak up and let the public know.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Just because those "cracked versions" are displayed up there doesn't mean they actual work. Perhaps to the next update (remember "genuine windows advantage"?), if a downloader is very lucky. What usually is up there are highly unstable beta versions, that are also virus infested. So it where I observe it, the downloaders prefer the ancient Windows and Office versions.

I have a number of acquaintances who run pirated W7 Ultimate, who installed it just after release and have never had any trouble at all. I also regularly encounter students at work who do the same thing. What you're claiming simply isn't the case at all.

Actually, not only isn't it the case, it's actually easier than ever to download and install the most recent Windows OS and make it work without a hitch.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by elcreative

So you actually think that if you can't serve somebody then any case is unfair... great defence against crimes... I'll do what I want then flee the jurisdiction and carry on committing crimes by remote in your jurisdiction... did you read the full judgement relating to the inability to contact TPB owners... do you seriously mean that because of that, there should be no action to take because "it's not fair, if they can't defend themselves..." when they've made the choice to move out of their home country and scatter round the world... your opinion may be that the process was unfair but that tends to make your opinion, at the best, incredibly naive... there have been many court cases where defendants are not present (usually by their choice) and nobody denies their legality so what's so special about running a "pirate" site that requires the owners get special treatment when thay can't be bothered to defend themselves in courts anyway...

The issue is not that the defendents chose not to be there, but that they were never joined or invited to attend, so did not have the chance to decide to attend or not.
In this particular case it makes no pragmatic difference, as TPB would not have turned up to defend the case, but there is a significant legal diffence.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Lots of independent musicans have though.

I think you would find it impossible to demonstrate any loss whatsoever.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How long ago were they saying that? I think they must have changed their mind once they reached market dominance because since XP their copy protection has become more and more intrusive with each release. Obviously that won't apply to pirate versions because it will have been stripped off, but it does show a desire not to have it copied. I've also heard they trawl through Ebay looking for people selling genuine OEM disks without a computer to go with it.

The quote isn't recent but the overall situation hasn't changed. There are plenty of Windows 7 images available.

Microsoft's efforts at stopping piracy don't prove they want it eliminated. They want to keep it in check, given that other options are easily and legally available at no cost.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I respectfully disagree. That is simply foisting the job of investigating possible illegal activity—and it's corresponding punishment—onto private companies where it most certainly doesn't belong. We already have police, courts and penal institutions to do these very things. Should due process be skipped simply because it's inconvenient and/or expensive?

They are not foisting the job of investigating illegal activity on to the ISP, they are simply making the ISP responsible for enforcing the, already investigated, ruling.

This is not unique, in the UK at least, shops are responsible for making sure that anyone buying tobacco is over 16 and anyone buying alcohol is over 18 (You also need to be over 18 to buy a kitchen knife in my local supermarket, but I'm not sure if that's a legal requirement or not.)

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Just because those "cracked versions" are displayed up there doesn't mean they actual work. Perhaps to the next update (remember "genuine windows advantage"?), if a downloader is very lucky. What usually is up there are highly unstable beta versions, that are also virus infested. I have seen some idiots using these Windows 7 copies. They reformatted their HDs every 3 months, at least! So it where I observe it, the downloaders prefer the ancient Windows and Office versions.

Besides, the premise was that Microsoft likes piracy and does nothing to stop it. I think we have clearly shown that not to be the case. They have been quite successful, not that they have completely stopped it.

"Microsoft likes piracy" may have been your premise, but it wasn't mine. What I said was that MS benefits from piracy.

Haven't completely stopped it is quite the understatement. They haven't done nearly what they could have, and the reason is piracy can't be stopped.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

They are not foisting the job of investigating illegal activity on to the ISP, they are simply making the ISP responsible for enforcing the, already investigated, ruling.

This is not unique, in the UK at least, shops are responsible for making sure that anyone buying tobacco is over 16 and anyone buying alcohol is over 18 (You also need to be over 18 to buy a kitchen knife in my local supermarket, but I'm not sure if that's a legal requirement or not.)

Yes, but I assume that in the UK, they don't make it the responsibility of the shop-keeper to ensure that someone under the age of 16 can't find their shop. Or look through the window.

And what would happen to a shop that was repeatedly caught selling tobacco to minors? Would they close the shop down, or would the authorities make a representative of the local chamber of commerce stand outside the shop and keep all patrons from entering?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think you would find it impossible to demonstrate any loss whatsoever.

That didn't stop the BPI.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The issue is not about people "needing" to find torrent sites, but about links to pages on TBP being returned by entirely innocent searches.

That actually happens?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course it is. Action was taken to block access to TPB. That's very much "against" them even if they weren't the defendents in the case.

What action was that? To make the ISPs block one door, when TPB has complete freedom to make other doors? The action harmed the ISPs, while TPB got free publicity.

Originally Posted by stonetools

The court has apparently rejected those and the rest of these arguments. Apparently, in the real world these nice distinctions you espouse cut no ice in the face of the actual avidence of TPB's actions.

The language of the decision is strange. If you accept it, then those that used TPB to get files have been authorized to do so.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Authorise was defined in the ruling.

As what?

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I assume the casuals are people who search for something they want, then when the top results all say DOWNLOAD FREE HERE they click on those instead of BUY NOW ON AMAZON on the next page.

What you are describing are links to direct downloads, not torrent sites, so not TPB.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Are they proposing to close it down, or just rename the street signs nearby and hope that nobody can operate a map well enough to find it anyway?

This is the funniest post in the thread.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I travel in countries where they use plenty of pirated copies. But all old versions like Windows XP. Few dare to use the Windows 7 copies, apparently they are seriously messed up.

Wouldn't the choice between XP and win7 be based on the hardware that they are going to put it on?

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes, but I assume that in the UK, they don't make it the responsibility of the shop-keeper to ensure that someone under the age of 16 can't find their shop. Or look through the window.

And what would happen to a shop that was repeatedly caught selling tobacco to minors? Would they close the shop down, or would the authorities make a representative of the local chamber of commerce stand outside the shop and keep all patrons from entering?

Fine for selling alcohol to underage people = £2500
Fine for selling tobacco to underage people = £200 for first offence, £400 for second offence (also the ability to stop the shop selling tobacco), Possible Criminal conviction / £20000 for third offence & banned from selling tobacco (can be either against the store or the person at the counter)
Responsibility for upholding the minimum age laws rests entirely with retailers and their shop staff.

Finding the shop is fine as they sell other items
This is analogous to making TPB responsible for what is downloaded via their "storefront" (and yes I know they don't actually host the files, but they are certainly facilitating access to pirated material)