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

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Are you suggesting that as long as people in the UK are blocked from seeing crimes against children on the internet all is right with the world?

He clearly isn't saying that, and I don't see how any rational person could have read into his words.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

He clearly isn't saying that, and I don't see how any rational person could have read into his words.

No rational person could.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Are you suggesting that as long as people in the UK are blocked from seeing crimes against children on the internet all is right with the world?

Now I have to quote from your previous posts: "???"

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I did not trivialize crimes against children. Just the opposite, I find it offensive that you are twisting my words and are making it sound as if I said that child abuse and copyright infringement are equally bad. Using this extreme example I pointed out that it would be the logical extension of the position taken by some forum members that websites are only responsible for observing local laws where the site is situated and should be free to distribute their material worldwide. A slippery slope indeed when people take that legal position.

You can hide behind the argument all you like. You chose to make the comparison between copyright and child pornography. You could have chose another example, but decided to go for shock value.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

The price part is only part of the problem.
It's also about DRM, geo-restiction, anti piracy "ads" on dvd you've paid for....

Indeed.

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by sabredog

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.

Why on earth would you choose to bring such a personal part of your wife's life into a petty on-line discussion?

I really hope that you asked your wife's permission before slapping that on a public forum.

[Sil_liS]

This is my last post on this thread since I have received a warning that the moderating team considers that I've been trolling. I won't continue to read this thread, and if the moderating team wants to ban me for what I am writing here I'm fine with it.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

He clearly isn't saying that, and I don't see how any rational person could have read into his words.

Originally Posted by HarryT

No rational person could.

I didn't see either of you making similar comments when Hans posted this in reply to my post:

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?

Here's the problem: blocking a website (or more websites) doesn't stop anything. People in country 'A' will simply use another method to get the same thing and the country 'B' were the server of the website is located still doesn't acknowledge the same legal rights.

The method that was chosen to fix the problem doesn't work. It just pushes the people using the websites to use methods that are more difficult to detect. And it will push the websites to stop making any effort to comply to copyright in countries other than the one where the servers are located because if makes no difference in the eyes of the court if they do. A website that deleted 75% of the reported URLs is treated in exactly the same way as a website that made it clear they will never remove anything, and all because they don't actually get to defend themselves in court.

Where there's a will, there's a way, and as the saying goes, if people will want to pirate they will find a way to do it. Countries should work on changing the mind of their citizens instead of making laws that bypass legal defense. The end doesn't justify the means.

I'm not saying that UK courts shouldn't take action to stop the websites from being viewed. They should, but this isn't the way to do it. It's as effective as sticking your head in the sand, and when they will come out for air they will get another report illustrating how their measures were avoided. They would have more luck making people avoid these websites if they would make it that in order to get to any pages a user would have to first watch a video of an author explaining the importance of copyright.

I also think that there would be more effective ways of punishing people who infringe on copyright, like having them work in a recording studio, or publishing house to pay for illegal downloads instead of threatening them with ridiculous fines.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They were given the opportunity to demonstrate that they were a legitimate business by complying with requests to remove links to copyright-infringing material. They declined to do so. .

We only have the BPI's word about that, and it does contradict what the site owners themselves had to say on the matter. So it seems somewhat odd that no evidence was provided to back up this statement. Especially since the site owners would be in a position to provide such evidence if it was asked for.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because it's free. Unless you're suggesting that copyright holders give everything away free of charge, how are you going to stop people from downloading stuff for free? Eg, I look on Amazon and "Game of Thrones, Season 2" is available on DVD for £25 (€29). If I can easily download it free of charge, why would I pay £25 for it? The best approach - IMHO - is to remove temptation and prevent people from casually accessing the sites where it can be accessed for nothing.

A DVD isn't the same as a digital file you can play on any equipment you want to play it on. Is Game of Thrones Season 2 available legally in such a format? If not, why not?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I also think that there would be more effective ways of punishing people who infringe on copyright, like having them work in a recording studio, or publishing house to pay for illegal downloads

Yes, then the publishers could save money by getting rid of their existing staff and use free pirate staff instead.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by CallOfCth'reader

Why on earth would you choose to bring such a personal part of your wife's life into a petty on-line discussion?

I really hope that you asked your wife's permission before slapping that on a public forum.

I won't question his motives but I agree with you that this is the wrong place for that discussion. If I had seen a thread entitled "child abuse" or "pedophilia" or "child porn" I would have not opened it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by afv011

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.

They have no particular right to be accessible to servers located in the UK. If they want to operate their business in the UK, they may have to comply with UK interpretations of laws.

I am not in favor of the blocking strategy. However, that doesn't give TPB any rights in the UK; if they want to be represented in court, they can announce their willingness to comply with UK legal rulings. Without that, the UK has the right to say, "this content should not enter our borders," and choose any method legal by international law/trade agreements to enforce that. ISP blocking doesn't violate the Geneva conventions.

Whether or not the content "should" be illegal (whether or not they're hosting, or facilitating copyright infringement, or whatever other site-related aspects are of concern), once the UK courts have decided they are illegal, blocking access to them seems reasonable.

If UK citizens think their rights are being abridged or infringed by this, they can speak up about it; the UK is not a dictatorial fascist regime that blocks access to other countries' websites on a whim. But TPB certainly doesn't get a vote about it.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They have no particular right to be accessible to servers located in the UK.

I'm not sure about that, but the people in the UK have a right to access the website.

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by afv011

I'm not sure about that, but the people in the UK have a right to access the website.

We have many (diminishing) rights, but I don't think the right to access a web site has ever been enshrined in British law.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by CallOfCth'reader

We have many (diminishing) rights, but I don't think the right to access a web site has ever been enshrined in British law.

But there is a law guaranteeing freedom of expression (it has lots of exceptions -- but no exceptions for facilitating infringement of copyright).

In my opinion, the whole controversy of the topic is not caused by the question whether or not there is justice in blocking the sites mentioned in the original articles. I now visited two of them, and they are pirate sites beyond any doubt. However, large corporations having the power to block access to sites without audi alteram partem is for me beyond questionable. Frankly, I have much more ethical problems with large corporations buying and coercing or lawmakers into making laws distinctively advantaging said large corporations than with a bunch of losers listing torrent links.

In the end, if the question would be authors, musicians etc. versus pirate sites, my sympathy and support would fully lie with the former. That is not the question for me in this case, it is large corporations versus pirates -- I don't have a lot of sympathy for either. I also have to admit that the actions of the large corporations have brought the situation dangerously close to a situation where I see the question as large corporation versus groups that hold a grudge against them. In that case, my sympathy, if not support, will most likely lie with the latter groups.