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

[Ninjalawyer]

Here's the written decision of the high court if anyone is interested:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...68.html#para12

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's no "may" about it. It is against the law (unless you have the permission of the copyright holder, of course).

Or you are the copyright holder. Why were none of the people using TPB for promotional purposes not consulted? Who will compensate them for their loss of earnings?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the High Court tells me so, and they know a lot more about English law than I do.

Judges don't always get it right, especially about things they have little or no knowledge about. We had a judge once who said women who wear skimpy clothes deserve to be raped.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I hate to quote something at such length, but one of the commenters on a story at Techdirt (here) posted the finest summary of the case that I've yet seen:

A good description. Which clearly shows that the courts decision was based on information from just one side. So the English courts decision cannot be trusted.

[murraypaul]

Worth pointing out that although all the discussion is about the actions of the UK courts, the law the rightsholders are using is a transposition of a European directive, so broadly the same would apply in any EU country.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

I realize we're not talking about US courts, but this would fail the O'Brien test in America. While distributing copyright materials may be against the law, I would see the linking as similar to the actual O'Brien case.

The claim is not that the operators of TPB are infringing by directly copying works.
It is that
a) Users of TPB are infringing by copying
b) The operators of TPB are infringing by authorising the users' acts, and
c) are jointly liable for them
So whether they do or don't host actual files, torrent files or just magnet links doesn't matter.

[markbot]

The MPAA should just hire some former black ops to take out the Pirate Bay and the founders. If they can take care of a Latin American dictator, I'm sure they can handle some IT nerds.

[Ravensknight]

Originally Posted by markbot

The MPAA should just hire some former black ops to take out the Pirate Bay and the founders. If they can take care of a Latin American dictator, I'm sure they can handle some IT nerds.

I can NOT believe you just, even jokingly, suggested that someone be killed over entertainment data...

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Keroberos

Just like roads are tools used to transport people and goods, and they may be and are used to commit crimes, should we block those too?

As a general principle, the law should look at the primary purpose for the tool. In much of the US, there are laws against laypeople possessing tools specifically designed to pick locks. Now there are other tools, such as ice picks, that might also do the job, albeit not as easily. Those are always legal. And there are legal things you could do with a lock picking tool -- including, I think, breaking apart blocks of ice. It's hard to imagine any tool with no legal purposes, or any society in which every tool is unregulated.

I've posted before that I would rather this ruling be overturned because I think dictatorships will use it as an excuse to censor ideas. But if it was just a question of whether Pirate Bay is more like a road, or more like a set of lock picking tools, I'd say the latter.

Question: Press accounts I have read say little about the possibility of the ruling being appealed, even though there are two UK appeals levels above the High Court. Will it be appealed? And how often is the High Court overruled?

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

We had a judge once who said women who wear skimpy clothes deserve to be raped.

Unless that judge now sits on the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, this sounds like guilt by association. Just one of my personal bugaboos.

[lostmymarbles]

Thank god its British ISPs and not Australian ISPs.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by lostmymarbles

Thank god its British ISPs and not Australian ISPs.

After AFACT's epic fail, I am not sure even the Feds would be keen on this sort of thing.

BUT

Conroy might be so concerned about "Spams through my portals" that he might resurrect his great Australian Internet Filter.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Here's the written decision of the high court if anyone is interested:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...68.html#para12

Well, I've had a crack at this, and have finally got to the end.
After a lot of sweat, I reckon I know what they're on about, and what was decided.

The next thing I would normally say is along the lines of "why can't lawyers make legal things simple, MUCH shorter, and easy enough to read, well, easily".
(I ignore the rational argument that they have to cover every loophole, & just want - in my case - Plain English)

However, I've just had to cope with my son's new house tenancy agreement, and our guarantor form that he's good for the cash.
At first sight, my heart leapt - ours was one page, with about 25 lines on it, and his about double.
Great........

However, this involved around 6/7 phone calls to legals, 4 to the letting agency, 7 to the other parents prepared to sign away their financial security for a year, and about a dozen to and from son, plus texts, to reassure him that all was being sorted out. Oh, and a couple from our accountants asking why their standard confirmation forms, good enough for IBM, Sothebys, and the local council, weren't OK for a small West Country letting agency.

The main problem - apart from the letting agency not understanding their "standard form" either - was the terminology used, "licencee" being a typical example.
( Or, not calling a spade a bloody spade, but a terrain repositioning device without prejudice.)

So I found the TPB tract a doddle compared to a legal tenancy agreement, and would recommend it for a pretty decent light read.

[Jazzy_Jeffaz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the High Court tells me so, and they know a lot more about English law than I do.

You need to think for yourself. Slavery used to be legal but that did not make it right. The courts used to uphold this as well.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jazzy_Jeffaz

You need to think for yourself. Slavery used to be legal but that did not make it right. The courts used to uphold this as well.

You've had a chance now to read the court's decision. Which parts of it do you disagree with, may I ask?

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Question: Press accounts I have read say little about the possibility of the ruling being appealed, even though there are two UK appeals levels above the High Court. Will it be appealed? And how often is the High Court overruled?

Unless that judge now sits on the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, this sounds like guilt by association. Just one of my personal bugaboos.

This case won't be appealed. The ISPs barely participated in the first place because they had no particular interest in wasting tons of money on defending an issue that they don't really care about and The Pirate Bay wasn't a party to the action.

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

The next thing I would normally say is along the lines of "why can't lawyers make legal things simple, MUCH shorter, and easy enough to read, well, easily". (I ignore the rational argument that they have to cover every loophole, & just want - in my case - Plain English)

It's hard to charge $250 an hour to review documents that a human could read. And actually, periodically a "plain drafting" movement will get some steam in the legal industry. Unfortunately, a lot of legal documents that are "translated" to plain language end up losing some important detail or changing the detail of something small (small that is, until it goes to court).