High Court orders British ISPs to block "The Pirate Bay" - Page 12

mr ploppy · 05-05-2012, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Do you have any "evidence" to back this claim up? Because from the ever increasing amount of material that is being "pirated" It appears that piracy cannot be stopped, nor should it be.

Simply typing, "Why isn't pirate bay not working" into Google should get the casuals to the next site at any rate.

The "casuals" will go wherever Google tells them to go. The only reason TPB is top of any Google search now is because of the number of visitors it has and the number of people clicking those links. Artificially reduce the number of visitors TPB gets and the next biggest pirate site will dominate Google. Then you're back to square one.

HarryT · 05-05-2012, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The "casuals" will go wherever Google tells them to go. The only reason TPB is top of any Google search now is because of the number of visitors it has and the number of people clicking those links. Artificially reduce the number of visitors TPB gets and the next biggest pirate site will dominate Google. Then you're back to square one.

So then we go after that one, and the next, and the next.

To suggest that it's pointless to go after criminals on the grounds that doing so will not entirely eliminate crime seems a rather spurious argument to me.

Which points of this High Court judgement are you in disagreement with?

mr ploppy · 05-05-2012, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

So then we go after that one, and the next, and the next.

To suggest that it's pointless to go after criminals on the grounds that doing so will not entirely eliminate crime seems a rather spurious argument to me.

Which points of this High Court judgement are you in disagreement with?

There is a more logical solution, given Google's precedent in China.

HarryT · 05-05-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

There is a more logical solution, given Google's precedent in China.

What is the more logical solution?

tompe · 05-05-2012, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

So then we go after that one, and the next, and the next.

To suggest that it's pointless to go after criminals on the grounds that doing so will not entirely eliminate crime seems a rather spurious argument to me.

Should they go after the criminals at MobileRead also? Exactly what is the difference here? At mobileread you have links to work that are stored in a country were it is legal to make it available. And the site show how to download stuff from countries were this is illegal. Should MobileRead be blocked since it helps with commiting copyright infringement? If not, what is the difference here?

HarryT · 05-05-2012, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Should they go after the criminals at MobileRead also? Exactly what is the difference here? At mobileread you have links to work that are stored in a country were it is legal to make it available. And the site show how to download stuff from countries were this is illegal. Should MobileRead be blocked since it helps with commiting copyright infringement? If not, what is the difference here?

It's clear in the court's judgement, if you read it. The reason that the blocking order was granted was that TPB was judged to have no significant use other than aiding and abetting copyright infringement. Most people would accept, I believe, that even though MR does indeed, as you rightly say, host files which would be illegal for people in certain countries to download, it also has a significant proportion of content that does not infringe.

The "significant non-infringing use" test has been the primary criterion applies to copyright infringement cases for many, many years, in both the US and UK.

mr ploppy · 05-05-2012, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

What is the more logical solution?

Get Google to stop indexing pirate sites.

HarryT · 05-05-2012, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Get Google to stop indexing pirate sites.

Now there we are in total agreement.

mr ploppy · 05-05-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "significant non-infringing use" test has been the primary criterion applies to copyright infringement cases for many, many years, in both the US and UK.

How was the court made aware of the non-infringing use of the site? I can't really see the BPI telling them about all the independent musicians promoting themselves on there, and nobody from the site itself was invited. So who put forward the other side of the argument so that the judge could make a balanced and reasoned judgement?

Keroberos · 05-05-2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Get Google to stop indexing pirate sites.

And who gets to be the judge of what's infringing? The rights-holders? They don't have a very good track record of identifying what's infringing or not. Some government agency? They just seem to be a mouthpiece for the rights-holders.

HarryT · 05-05-2012, 10:26 AM

I think most of us would accept that it falls into the "pretty blooming obvious" category that TPB is, first and foremost, a pirate site.

Hint: the clue's in the name...

Keroberos · 05-05-2012, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think most of us would accept that it falls into the "pretty blooming obvious" category that TPB is, first and foremost, a pirate site.

Hint: the clue's in the name...

One would hope that a judge who has not been to TPB would want to make a decision based on more than just a name and few third party reports from those that want to see TPB shut down.

HarryT · 05-05-2012, 10:52 AM

Are you disputing the fact that TPB is a site which exists first and foremost for the purpose of aiding people to infringe copyright?

Keroberos · 05-05-2012, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you disputing the fact that TPB is a site which exists first and foremost for the purpose of aiding people to infringe copyright?

No, it exists to allow its users to link to files they want to share, something which has apparently been deemed legal in their country of operation. If their users are linking infringing files is it TPB's responsibility or is it the users? As I linked to earlier, Viacom is still convinced that YouTube is dedicated to infringement, I would hate to see how that case would have gone if YouTube was not allowed to state their case, and Dajaz1.com's domain was seized and held for over a year with no court hearing at all at the behest of the RIAA. This is why cases like these need to be decided in a true adversarial court hearing where both sides get to have their say.

mr ploppy · 05-05-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keroberos

And who gets to be the judge of what's infringing? The rights-holders?

Who gets to judge now?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
epub "padding left" to mobi "block quote" conversion issue	1611mac	Conversion	3	01-11-2012 02:10 PM
Copyright lobby targets "Pirate Bay for textbooks"	gwynevans	News	6	04-23-2009 08:33 PM
High Court teaches meaning of "public domain" to heirs of author	JeffElkins	News	3	12-21-2008 08:59 PM
"SuperBook" project - British School studies e-books usage	TadW	News	2	06-28-2007 10:46 PM

05-05-2012, 10:26 AM	#176
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,556 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I think most of us would accept that it falls into the "pretty blooming obvious" category that TPB is, first and foremost, a pirate site. Hint: the clue's in the name...

05-05-2012, 10:52 AM	#178
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,556 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Are you disputing the fact that TPB is a site which exists first and foremost for the purpose of aiding people to infringe copyright?

Advert

Advert