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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The question is which law and where.

These sites are breaking British copyright law by aiding and abetting copyright infringement. But, given the fact that the site itself is outside the reach of British law, the best that the law can do is to try to prevent British people from accessing the sites. It's far from ideal, but it's probably the best that can be done at the present time.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, but how does copyright law REDUCE the rights of authors? Copyright law gives authors rights that they don't have without it; it doesn't take any rights away from an author. And what on Earth does any of this have to do with what we're discussing here?

I didn't say that copyright law reduces the rights of authors, I said that authors now have less rights than before the copyright laws came into existence. This happened because the law permitted the rights to be passed. A social system where people can sell themselves into slavery has less freedom than a system where this can't happen.

Originally Posted by HarryT

These sites are breaking British copyright law by aiding and abetting copyright infringement. But, given the fact that the site itself is outside the reach of British law, the best that the law can do is to try to prevent British people from accessing the sites. It's far from ideal, but it's probably the best that can be done at the present time.

They are not breaking British copyright law. If an 18 year old drinks alcohol in a country where 18 is the legal drinking age you wouldn't say that he is breaking the law in countries where the legal drinking age is 21 because he isn't in those countries.

[Greg Anos]

However, if he consumes a foreign beer in his own country, he can't complaint about being charged for underage drinking because the drinking age in the country the beer is produced in has a 18 year old drinking age, if he is under the legal age where he is consuming it.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

However, if he consumes a foreign beer in his own country, he can't complaint about being charged for underage drinking because the drinking age in the country the beer is produced in has a 18 year old drinking age, if he is under the legal age where he is consuming it.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

They are not breaking British copyright law.

A British judge disagrees with you, and his word counts more.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

A British judge disagrees with you, and his word counts more.

Could not have happened because the websites are not under the jurisdiction of the court.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Could not have happened because the websites are not under the jurisdiction of the court.

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

Conclusion
I conclude that the operators of the Websites infringe the Claimants' copyright in each of the three ways alleged.

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.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Could not have happened because the websites are not under the jurisdiction of the court.

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.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Why should websites that distribute materials that are illegal in the UK be accessible there?

There's a grey area here. Sites like TPB do not distribute illegal material (as much as a link is not illegal). You could say they help people find illegal material, but they do not distribute it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I didn't say that copyright law reduces the rights of authors, I said that authors now have less rights than before the copyright laws came into existence. This happened because the law permitted the rights to be passed. A social system where people can sell themselves into slavery has less freedom than a system where this can't happen.


They are not breaking British copyright law. If an 18 year old drinks alcohol in a country where 18 is the legal drinking age you wouldn't say that he is breaking the law in countries where the legal drinking age is 21 because he isn't in those countries.

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?

So if someone views kiddie porn on a server placed in a country where that is not illegal that is fine and nobody should do anything to stop it?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by afv011

There's a grey area here. Sites like TPB do not distribute illegal material (as much as a link is not illegal). You could say they help people find illegal material, but they do not distribute it.

TPB is not making the slightest effort to prevent the linking to illegal material. And UK authorities are not trying to close down the site, so TPB's rights are not affected. They can still operate wherever they are legal.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So if someone views kiddie porn on a server placed in a country where that is not illegal that is fine and nobody should do anything to stop it?

I find it obscene that you make any comparison regarding copyright infringement to something as illegal, immoral and disgusting as child pornography.

My wife was sexually molested by a family friend and a relative from the age of 8 to the age of 14. The experiences she endured have caused significant mental scarring.

To trivialise such crimes thus in your post is truly obscene.

[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.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

TPB is not making the slightest effort to prevent the linking to illegal material.

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that it is incorrect to say that these sites distribute illegal material, they do not.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And UK authorities are not trying to close down the site, so TPB's rights are not affected.

When any site, illegal or not, can't be accessed without the site's owners having a chance to defend themselves against such action, their rights are indeed affected.