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

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Keroberos

Talk about having the exact opposite effect then the one that was intended .

As a side-effect of participating in this post, I did go to the Pirate Bay web site. A search failed to find any of the three non-fiction books I am going back and forth between. And I didn't go on to download anything.

When I read in the press about some illegal activity with a web front, I often will go to the web site (pornography excluded). This is not an indication of support.

I wouldn't rule out a short-term blip in downloading of copyrighted material due to the court ruling publicity. But your link presents no evidence of that.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Argument Pro-Tip: The use of all-caps to highlight important passages in your argument is both helpful to and appreciated by the person that you are arguing with. The use of all caps is in no way seen as rude or childish or as suggesting that you are anything but a learned internet scholar. The more often you can use all caps, the better.

The use of all-caps to highlight important passages is specifically designed to irritate the person they are aimed at in the hope that they would actually read what has been written and understand it... it's nearly worked this time but not quite so I'll leave you to continue with having missed some of the point as you clearly believe that accuracy is a waste of time...

And frankly, I don't see a lot of speech on TPB, just a lot of links to allow the D/Ling of files, many, at best, of dubious sourcing... now blocking access to MR, whilst leading to a quieter, less argumentative life, would definitely be infringing on free speech...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

That's quite a bit different from just taking someone's work without their permission and making money off of it. And the false equivalency between publishers and pirates is just silly - you might as well equate car thieves and car dealers, since both make money from the car manufacturer.

Publishers were the only book pirates for hundreds of years.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by elcreative

The use of all-caps to highlight important passages is specifically designed to irritate the person they are aimed at in the hope that they would actually read what has been written and understand it... it's nearly worked this time but not quite so I'll leave you to continue with having missed some of the point as you clearly believe that accuracy is a waste of time...

And frankly, I don't see a lot of speech on TPB, just a lot of links to allow the D/Ling of files, many, at best, of dubious sourcing... now blocking access to MR, whilst leading to a quieter, less argumentative life, would definitely be infringing on free speech...

I was less irritated and more filled with a profound sense of pity that an adult would feel the need to engage in such boorish behaviour, behaviour that only served to undermine his point. I am convinced by good arguments backed by facts, not ad hominems. Perhaps as a response to this post you can try childish name calling.

Really, I'm not sure why you feel the need to harp on this point, having already agreed that censorship in-fact is occurring.

As for speech on The Pirate Bay, even if you take the position that hyperlinks aren't speech (this argument is stronger or weaker depending on your jurisdiction), it's not hard to find examples of content that is clearly speech. See here, here and here. You can make the argument that The Pirate Bay should be blocked even if blocking it is infringing on freedom of speech, but I don't see how the argument can be made that it's okay to block because it's not speech at all; if it's not speech, then what is it?

I don't particularly like The Pirate Bay and don't use it, but I don't believe blocking it at the behest of copyrightholders is an appropriate response or serves the UK public.

Edit

I also find it disturbing that a website can be blocked without the website owners being represented in the judicial process. Without providing The Pirate Bay the ability to challenge the record companies suing the ISPs, it's difficult to see how the process used is supportable from a justice perspective.

[Keroberos]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I wouldn't rule out a short-term blip in downloading of copyrighted material due to the court ruling publicity. But your link presents no evidence of that.

I never said there would be an increase in downloading, just that the attempt to block a popular website will not work on those that are already using the site, and only make the information on how to circumvent the method of blocking more readily accessible to non technical internet users.

So who does this help? The copyright holders? At best, downloading will stay at current levels. How does that make them more money? And at what cost? implementing a blocking system will cost cost ISPs money which will be passed on to their subscribers, added with the slow erosion of civil liberties, and yes the damage to independent filmmakers, musicians and software developers who use the site to distribute their work. I don't see how this will be of help to anyone.

If they would put half of the money and effort that they have been spending on propping up obsolete business models with enforcement that does not work into developing new business models that are attractive to consumers, they would do more to increase their profits then all of their failed attempts at enforcement combined.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Publishers were the only book pirates for hundreds of years.

Relevance? So now that that's been cleaned up, other people can steal from authors?

[elcreative]

Edit: Changed mind... got bored part way through...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by elcreative

You can keep your pity to yourself as you seem more deserving of it being unable to respond to the relevance of distinguishing the source of the blocking action... and censorship per se is not necessarily a fault in itself when it can be an action to discourage illegal activity... you may disagree with the actions, being stopped, being considered illegal and there is a forum for dealing with such things in this country now. Anyone can start a petition for something to be debated in Parliament and it only requires 100,000 signees for it to be considered, not forgetting direct action by engaging with elected representatives but the action taken was a legal action as a result of the equally legal actions of a court which was also legally setup...

Would you ride on such a high horse if the site being blocked was promoting terrorism or snuff films yet blocking them is also censorship by any definition of the word... some things that may be offensive, when expanded to more general areas, are generally regarded as part of the social contract to promote a civilised society by interfering with things that are against the accepted rules that most people live by... getting so irate about a site that (by its very name) promotes activities that are not legal, is a poor choice of target... when we start blocking sites without any legal action for no good reason then you are more likely to gather general support from a substantial part of the population.

Apparently there was legal action and the site is being blocked for good reason. Will this action reduce piracy? Most probably not. But it does make it more difficult for the pirates to make money and it will make others think twice. It is just like police action against petty theft -- it is never "worth" it. But if society takes no action, then the "bad guys" can just act with impunity.

Are any legitimate users being hurt? Not really, they have plenty of other options. This really only affects the site owners.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Apparently there was legal action and the site is being blocked for good reason. Will this action reduce piracy? Most probably not. But it does make it more difficult for the pirates to make money and it will make others think twice. It is just like police action against petty theft -- it is never "worth" it. But if society takes no action, then the "bad guys" can just act with impunity.

+1 This too... even if I deleted my quote as I decided I couldn't be bothered part way through...

[sabredog]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/te...-1226345602104

Interesting article

[Keroberos]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But it does make it more difficult for the pirates to make money and it will make others think twice

Are there actually any substantiated numbers on what amount of money these pirate site are allegedly making? I haven't seen anything but industry claims that seem to have no basis in fact.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is just like police action against petty theft -- it is never "worth" it. But if society takes no action, then the "bad guys" can just act with impunity.

This is a false analogy. It assumes that there is only one possible action to take to solve the problem--more enforcement. As other industries have shown (Valve's Steam in Russia, ad supported internet music streaming, and services like Netflix and Hulu) there are multiple ways to combat internet piracy, which have been proven to actually lessen the effects of piracy and generate profits. With over a decade of increasing enforcement, and little to no effect on piracy to show for it, maybe it's time to sit back and rethink if this is really going to help or not.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Now if you'd said that you think blocking the UK public from viewing The Pirate Bay is a reasonable limit to free speech in the UK, I would disagree but would respect that you have a defensible position. Of course, then I would point out that even if you agree with blocking The Pirate Bay, you should admit that this case sets some disturbing precedent with respect to a party being able to sue another party to block a website from public access.

The precedent was Newzbin, TPB is just the next logical extension.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Are any legitimate users being hurt? Not really, they have plenty of other options.

But none with anywhere near the same visitor footfall as TPB.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Apparently there was legal action and the site is being blocked for good reason. Will this action reduce piracy? Most probably not. But it does make it more difficult for the pirates to make money and it will make others think twice. It is just like police action against petty theft -- it is never "worth" it. But if society takes no action, then the "bad guys" can just act with impunity.

Are any legitimate users being hurt? Not really, they have plenty of other options. This really only affects the site owners.

It was a legal civil action, I agree. However, just because it was legal doesn't mean it was just. The UK public is barred from accessing a website and the operators of The Pirate Bay have had their site blocked in the UK even though they could not make any arguments in the court proceedings (since the action wasn't against them). As I said, even if you don't like The Pirate Bay, this sets a worrisome precedent in the UK for site blocking with seemingly little consideration about the harm blocking causes to the public.

Maybe a more apt analogy than petty theft would be the police shutting down a printing press that was printing pro-piracy pamphlets, as well as other material.

Originally Posted by elcreative

... getting so irate about a site that (by its very name) promotes activities that are not legal, is a poor choice of target... when we start blocking sites without any legal action for no good reason then you are more likely to gather general support from a substantial part of the population.

Popular speech, like the websites that you describe above rarely need special protection under the law; unpopular speech, like that contained on The Pirate Bay, is where consideration of free speech is actually necessary.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Popular speech, like the websites that you describe above rarely need special protection under the law; unpopular speech, like that contained on The Pirate Bay, is where consideration of free speech is actually necessary.

Absolutely correct. Karma inbound.