Big Blighty telcos ordered to block three BitTorrent search sites A High Court judge ruled today that Britain's six biggest telecoms providers should block three BitTorrent tracker websites - one of which is allegedly fronted by Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Swartholm Warg. BT, BSkyB, EE, Virgin Media, O2 and TalkTalk were all ordered by Mr Justice Arnold to shutter access to downloads …
Not sure even that phrase applies. More like Pyrrhic encounter.
Frankly, while I loathe the freeloaders, I'm even more disgusted with the ham handed attempts at stopping them. There is a defined manner for recovering damages from people who pirate music: identify them and sue them for damages in the appropriate court. But the IP industry doesn't want to go through all that hard work so they go after third parties instead. Besides which, it's bad PR when they go after individuals. I could probably even put up with them lobbying for changes to the law such that the primary vehicle for infringement needs to be proved in court and once proven the small fry go through some administrative process defined in the legislation. But this crap with trying to blacklist websites has to stop.
"Blocking these sites is a good first step towards freeing the internet from the tyranny of these pirates, but we all know who the real bad guys are. As the article put it, "workarounds can be easily found by anyone capable of using Google." Once we block this Google thing, then finally our Copyrights shall be safe for ever more."
"Have they not learnt from the proliferation of Pirate Bay proxies that are out there?"
Well, it's been 10 hours since this article was posted, so I presume proxies for these three specific sites have already been set up!
Woo-ooo-ooo-ooo-ooo ooo-ooo-ooo ooo-ooo-oo
Woo-ooo-ooo-ooo-ooo ooo-ooo-ooo ooo-ooo-oo
Woo-ooo-ooo-ooo-ooo ooo-ooo-ooo ooo-ooo-oo
Woo-ooo-ooo-ooo-ooo ooo-ooo-ooo ooo-ooo-oo
Barbra Streisand!
"UK users of the websites who have accounts with the defendants have infringed, and are continuing to infringe, the claimants' copyrights by copying the claimants' sound recordings on a large scale." - Mr Justice Arnold
What, all UK users? So, all UK users have illegally downloaded sound recordings from one or more of the claimants? I'd like to see him prove that in a court of law!
It specifically says "who have accounts" are infringing.
However I agree with your general direction - they are asserting that by having an account with the site you have infringed a copyright. Quite possibly true, but I could sign up and not use the account.
"I therefore conclude that UK users of the Websites who have accounts with the Defendants have infringed, and are continuing to infringe, the Claimants' copyrights by copying the Claimants' sound recordings on a large scale."
those who have accounts with the defendants - the defendants being BT, Sky, Virgin etc - the judgement implies that everyone who has an account with the defendants is guilty of copyright infringement if they use the Websites - even if they end up there by accident, and don't download any torrents at all.
On that basis, if one MP is a known, admitted liar & criminal like Mr Huhne, then all MPs are also criminals (although that may be true) as they use the same facilities (government buildings), as are - by extension - those who work in government buildings. Simply using the facilities is proof of guilt?
"The Claimants have again adduced evidence from Thomas Sehested of MarkMonitor. Mr Sehested's evidence is that between 15 October and 5 December 2012 (i) torrent files for all of the sample recordings were available for download on each of the Websites (subject to minor exceptions in the cases of H33T and Fenopy), (ii) by means of those torrent files, at least 15% of each album comprised in the sample recordings was being shared by a user via an account held with each of the Defendants and (iii) at least 1% of each album had been downloaded by MarkMonitor from each user account. Thus users of the Websites who have accounts with each of the Defendants (and who are therefore in the UK) have been engaged in sharing (and thereby making unlicensed copies of) the sample recordings."
Presumably MarkMonitor had the Websites permission to download and use their data for this purpose, and the permission of the user account holders in question to disclose their information to third parties? Oh, and where does it follow that just because someone has an account with BT they are in the UK at the time they accessed the site? Has this judge just outlawed the use of BT accounts for WiFi hotspot accounts when roaming overseas, or has he just proven - as if more proof needed! - that the judiciary chooses not to keep up to date with technology?
Then everyone should have some fun with this and sign up high profile anti piracy figures to torrenting sites and download a few torrents against their name.
No doubt law enforcement will get around to arresting these naughty, naughty people (after RIAA, MPAA, etc members accidently leave briefcases full of case at the local cop shop) and make an example of them. I wonder if the trials will end up something like in NZ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/31/rianz_gets_tiny_little_copyright_win/.
Who is this judge to tell others to stop me from doing something I want to do? What idiot was defending this case?
If I break the law, and the state can prove it, then the state can prosocute me.
If I cause you loss, and you can prove it, then you can sue me.
By what authority does this judge claim the right to demand someone else restrict my behaviour?
As much as I find this current 'attempt' at behavioural change a joke, I don't think you've thought this through. There are many laws which require a third party to change/restrict something to prevent you from breaking a law. For example, gun control. Restrictions on the sales of certain chemicals, seeds and animals. Your argument could apply to all of these, but should it?
yes and no (sorry).
The argument should not apply in the case where "I" commit an criminal offence: I should be prosecuted - by the Police/CPS, as they are the people charged with enforcing criminal law (not charities, for example, who have no business crying poverty then paying lawyers more than minimum wage). In this case, surely these are civil offences, so isn't suing infringers the correct way forward? However in this case the judge has effectively decided that site access should also be denied to those who have done no wrong: if EMI etc want to stop this sort of thing, they should sue the individual infringers against whom they have specific, lawfully-gathered (no snooping on people's web traffic by anyone other than a warrant-holding police/security officer), and if they are too lazy to do that, they should be told to go home and stop wasting the courts' time.
I wonder what would happen if someone who merely liked the adverts shown on one of the sites in question and never downloaded a thing then sued BT for blocking access to site without any evidence of wrong doing? Would the same judge support suppression of free speech?
There are many cases where joe public isn't allowed to do something they want to, which may result in something illegal happening. In fact, probably most law is there to stop someone who wants to do something from doing something which is considered by the state to be non-desireable.
I want to be able to smoke dope, while driving at 100mph on the motorway, but the law says I can't.
I'm also unclear as to how you think a _judge_ doesn't have the right to make legal proclamations?
> I'm also unclear as to how you think a _judge_ doesn't have the right to make legal proclamations?
I think that you have misunderstood his point, which I don't think was well stated.
There are certain things that are (almost) undisputably illegal e.g. sex with children for the purposes of producing pornography.
However, there seems to be a trend these days to try to tackle those actions by introducing laws to ban other related behaviour that is not, of itself, detestable (regardless of what you personally think of that person), e.g. looking at pictures of underage pornography.
Banning people from accessing websites is not and should never be illegal, and certainly not as a method of preventing people from copyright infringement.
The "crime" itself should be addressed directly, not by roundabout means, because those roundabout means are often overly general and undermine the morale authority of the original law.
The same laws that say I cannot buy a .50 calibre machine gun and mount it on a tripod, loaded, aimed at the front door of your house...even though I haven't pulled the trigger yet..
See - machine guns only exist to threaten or kill, and these sites only exist to pirate. So both can be banned a priori.
And that is not to say if banning pirating is good or bad, just saying that there are actions that can be banned "a priori" in a legal sense, because the likely outcome is known.
Serious filesharers and downloaders laugh at such blockades. The more casual downloader will use Google and find any of the hundred ways to circumvent these blockades quickly enough.
And if all else fails for the computer illiterates (of hwich there are still plenty) , almost everyone has a friend/family member who is versed in the above, and who will usually happily provide a copy of whatever you need.
I'm sorry to say this because I mean no disrespect for the judge.
But the judge is the only one who is useless here. I know that he is there to apply the law, and I know that pirating stuff is not legal because it is a form of copyright infringement.
I say that he is useless because the recording companies and their lobbies are abusing his ignorance to set a precedent, and a dangerous one, censorship of any kind is always a dangerous slippery slope, there is no shortage of people with vested interests and dishonest politicians that can exploit the precedent for sinister purposes.
The judge may consider that it is legal to censor, and he may even think he's doing some good to someone, but it is not fair, and it is completely useless, as the internet is designed to avoid damage.
I'm not saying pirating is fair, but pirating will not kill anyone, nor crush anyone, nor poison anyone.
"BT has consistently stated that copyright infringement is wrong and argued that rights holders should use the courts to enforce their legal rights and that we will comply with a court order as a result of any such case."
Yet in one of their own adverts the student goes into his bedroom and downloads Duran Duran's entire back catalogue to impress the girl... now we all know students have no money so all we can assume is that its pirated....
> . . . They ... Never ... Learn.
Wrong. You're missing the point. Organisations have a "life" of their own. The BPI will continue to attack infringement, however ineffective it is, because if it stops doing that it ceases to have a reason to exist. It would be organisational suicide.
It will never stop until its paymasters withdraw funding, regardless of how daft or irrelevant its actions are.
It's worrying that a Judge can make such an erroneous and sweeping (false) statement as
"UK users of the websites who have accounts with the defendants have infringed, and are continuing to infringe, the claimants' copyrights by copying the claimants' sound recordings on a large scale."
I suppose you could argue that he may have meant SOME of the UK Users but it sounds a lot to me like he's saying simply having an account with these people automatically makes you guilty of copyright infringement which is absolute hokum.
"labels can continue to sign and develop new talent."
LOL. You mean manufacture music for the masses by voting down to a favourite that is then shafted in our faces and ears all the time.
Personally, I prefer using bandcamp and Soundcloud where at least the majority of money is going to the artist, and theres no suits to get in the way who want a new ivory back scratcher.
Kickasstorrents is a particularly great site, not just for music but movies too.
Hahahahahaha...seriously these fools spend so much time and money pursuing these "Evil torrent sites" you have to wonder if they have any idea at all of how it all works, my 8 year old nephew laughed when his father told him he couldn't download music anymore as their ISP blocked these torrent sites, he then went on to tell me he hadn't used those in 3 years, his words were "Torrents are so last decade old man" and I'm only 30.
"...Blighty's big name ISPs were told by Mr Justice Arnold to kill access to The Pirate Bay website..."
Hmm, does this mean these ISPs are legally obliged not to let any networked traffic out of their own networks - bearing in mind once a person can get out on to the internet they can definitely access TPB?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
