Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
how do you feel about that?
I don't use it.
how do you feel about the UK High Court censoring/policing the internet?
I love it when filesharers suggest that the law being imposed correctly= political censorship.
Please don't make me agree with you. I hate it when that happens.
court ordering ISPs to block content is censorship
Sometimes censorship is ok.
why can't ISPs self-regulate on this and let the market decide best practice?
seems to be the norm in most industries
If ISP self-regulation worked then illegal content would be nothing like as accessible as it is on the internet.
it's clearly worked well for ISPs
What is this? Like just stopping yourself from doing it?
They should just self-censor themselves and they'd be no issue!!!!1
if they self-censored there'd be no child porn but they don't tend to so it becomes a Police matter
by the way - you and CG seem quite obsessed by this issue
which some argue has quite a severe damaging effect on, y'know, the music most of us lot buy and listen to.
But each to their own, I can see how it could be imposed wrongly and could end up as creeping censorship.
This court order is not banning any content from the internet, it's just banning certain ways of accessing/obtaining it based on long-standing legal principles (ie paying for shit).
there are easy work arounds
and in this case the legitimate content is being blocked alongside the illegitimate content - though the latter classification is the (presumed) minority here
That doesn't mean we should just abandon the principles that some things should remain illegal because they are deemed to be wrong.
I'll make a note of that
WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS THREAD
Agreeing with certain forms of censorship doesn't automatically mean a belief in a nanny state.
Please take your naunce elsewhere.
just because they disagree with you.
means censoring things.
But there's other, worse stuff going on which probably does constitute censorship. This almost certainly doesn't.
what's jarring is that this is the law being applied selectively and as an 'interpretation'. Not every website that does what TPB does is being targeted, and it's only after a fairly hefty amount of wrangling that the ruling of copyright infringement came through. Certainly, you could apply similar rules to Google tomorrow and work up an argument for having that blocked too. So it starts to feel as though the law is being led by industry.
It feels like the word of law wasn't really clear here, given that they weren't hosting materials. Instead, what almost certainly happened is that industry called for legal minutae to be applied until it could be legally blocked. You wonder what what happen in a similar eye was turned to even the more innocuous sites.
The Pirate Sit there and wave two fingers to the world.
why this is possibly cause for concern, however. Waving two fingers at the world isn't a crime, and if the only difference between TBP and google is that TPB are cheeky buggers then the relevant legislation is fucked.
Which secondary copyright infringement does, and is what these cases are pursued under.
By placing themselves firmly in the "know or have pretty solid grounds to suspect that this is illegal and don't give an actual fuck" camp, TPB deprive themselves of the defence that either i) they didn't know that they were facilitating infringing acts (or couldn't monitor their users anyway because of privacy concerns; see: ISPs everywhere) or ii) they were aware of legal and illegal use of their site and took steps to reduce the illegal usage (see: Google).
I don't think that's a legal minutiae thing, either. Intent matters. For secondary copyright infringement it's supposed to be an objective test of knowledge wherever possible, but TPB don't do themselves any favours, in a legal sense, by adopting the attitude that they do (which is of course the entire point of what they do - it's just not legally smart).
I'm pretty sure (without bothering to check) rules around, for example, theft, criminal damage or assault could be applied in a really really harsh draconian way to punish effectively innocent people but there's no evidence they actually will be.
To my mind, the Pirate Bay is very different to Google in that it was using that loophole that it wasn't hosting the materials as its get-out clause and I'm not hugely surprised a court of law have attempted to clarify the law and close that loophole. I don't necessarily think it's a reasonable reaction to see it as the start of a potential action against a host of other sites that inadvertently link to illegal copyright materials without it actually being its aim and purpose.
but I agree with the PB people that internet regulation is a massively important issue. Well, actually, in the present day, it's moderately important; but in the future it could be an increasingly crucial aspect of our lives. Lost ground on regulation today could have huge effects in the future, and much as I like music I don't think it's important enough to set legal precedents that affect the flow of data traffic around the world.
I think the closing of that linked-content loophole is actually pretty worrying. It could provide a precedent for closing pretty much any site, and the 'aim and purpose' bit is very vague. I get that what you're saying is that it won't necessarily lead to misuse of that new power, but, well, give me a reason for trusting this (or the previous) government with such things, again?
And if the law expanded beyond copyright infringement that would be worrying. But I can't immediately see it actually gives the government any powers it didn't have yesterday.
And I don't personally see copyright infringement as, for example, a freedom of speech issue. I think the worst you could say is that this creates a situation where, if certain democratic rights were made illegal, the government could then act to block any website that facilitated said democratic rights. But, at the same time, my main truck then would be with the law that had made something illegal, not the law that blocked the content.
This a bit incoherent isn't it?
The problem (for me) is that it already extends beyond copyright infringement. Every forum on the internet, unless moderated to absolute bejesus, has infringed copyright by provision of links. Those sites arguably don't exist to infringe copyright (as per the argument with TPB), but then again, if I didn't like that forum, I might argue that it did. This isn't an entirely abstract idea: there are loads of forums where links to copyrighted material is rife.
So this isn't a legal black and white issue, it's a precedent one; it's not that this kind of copyright infringement has been made illegal, it's that a precedent has now emerged for wielding the existing laws in a new way. I think that's a situation that is far from ideal..
As I understand it, the judgement is the High Court case went against the Pirate Bay as it “actively encourage[s copyright infringement] it and treat any attempts to prevent it (judicial or otherwise) with contempt”.
If someone did want to prosecute a site that didn't exist to actively encourage copyright infringement then this ruling might enable you to take that site to court but, if the site the site could demonstrate that it wasn't actively encouraging breaching of copyright and was willing to take reasonable attempts to prevent it, then it wouldn't be affected by the ruling.
Obviously the caveat to this is certainly there is an argument that this ruling could be used to bully small internet websites that might not have the funds/desire to mount a defence. But I don't think it actually gives carte blanche to the government to block all sights that have links to infringed copyright material, just the ones that actively promote that and refuse to comply to requests to remove that material once flagged.
and in the case of wikileaks the material published is quite clearly a case of copyright infringement
it would be like getting Al Capone on tax evasion
They don't need new laws to prosecute them or to block the website. They could do that under existing laws. I'm not really sure where you're going on this one.
political censorship (or at least the ability to implement it) is taking a lot of forms but there is a general trend currently for it to stand behind the shield of fighting piracy via SOPA, PIPA ... all of that stuff
but I can't get on board with that quote at all. Perhaps this sounds a bit paranoid, maybe. But 'actively encouraging' and 'treating with contempt'; these aren't phrases that I want to see used in cases determining the way that the internet is used. Particularly jarring is the bit that says 'judicial or otherwise': this is basically saying that they gave us lip, so they're going down, like a police office on a power trip!
I don't think it leaves us in full-on censorship land, though I do think we're a little step closer to it. The question is, do I think a UK government would like to be able to have more power over the content available to UK citizens than I'd be happy with (and do I think they'd use it)? I think they would (and I think they'd use it). Each minor precedent I see that muddies the waters seems to be closer to that, and I definitely think using a largely parasitic and bloated entertainment industry as a justification for doing so is reet depressing like
did I just do a rhyming couplet in that post? yeaaahhhh muthafuckaz
If you say it right it sounds like a rap, which is ironic because you can download rap music from a computer
I'm not entirely sure why people believe the internet to be this entirely free thing from policing and censorship anyway. Everyone knows there's things you can look at online that can get you arrested.
I don't particularly have any issue with the High Court feeling that they should take steps to ensure copyright law is being enforced. Law enforcement is what they're there to do.
Well I doubt they'll be censoring/policing the pages I view, such as cuteoverload.com and www.hawaiikawaii.net, so I don't think I've got anything to worry or be stressed about.
It's not as if anybody will find a way around it ever.
nor that they shouldn't have been able to. It's just a profound waste of everyone's time. Look at what happened when Napster got taken down.
as there are always bigger crimes to be fighting?
its just the end of it as a profession and a business. which i don't care about at all.
It's hard to argue with the reasoning that it's a website that encourages people to evade copyright laws (and hence break the law) and I don't find it unreasonable for a country to want a website that encourages people to break a law and tells them how to do it to be blocked if it is possible.
And frankly even if I thought otherwise, I'd consider there to be far greater evils in the world to be campaigned about. I think Jim Killock, who's quoted here (for example), is being pretty over-dramatic in claiming this is all the beginning of a slippery slope.
But I certainly don't see why anyone considers themselves to have a right to do those things. I know full well it's illegal and, whilst I'd find it a bit unlucky if I was arrested for it, I'd fully expect the forces of law to take any reasonable steps they could to stop me doing it and don't feel particularly outraged by that.
Will probably just use Isohunt, though, unless they've banned that as well?
To be honest, virtually any film or program you'll need to watch are streamed now, so you don't need to download as much, and for music you'd probably use other sites before PirateBay anyway.
I'm not really fussed. The people that run it gross me out with their attitudes and their awful porn ads all over their site so the sooner they all go bankrupt the better.
Blocking Google searches with the word "torrent" in it next, I guess.
that just takes you to a load of utterly shit scam website.
but you can find what you want if you know what to avoid, i guess.
I always just go on Pirate Bay.
I've used The Pirate Bay. But I'm not overly fussed as it's not going to impact me massively. I doubt it'll massively decrease the level of firesharing, though.
everything is cool at first then I get days of disconnecting on and off so I don't bother. Nearly all of my pitchfork endorsed music is available through Spotify and blogs... piratebay was a bit useless for music anyway unless I wanted a 2gb metallica discog. I'm also subscribed to lovefilm for films, I think my main problem is getting hold of episodes of good american television such as breaking bad or game of thrones, HBO stuff. But I'm sure you can stream that shit too well enough now.
since there's no way that legal proceedings (even when rushed) can ever catch up with the speed at which things change on the web.
everyone seems to be focusing on the fact that it's Pirate Bay rather than the fact that the precedent is in the High Court ruling that Copyright Infringement is a justifiable reason to order ISPs to block content on a National scale
The only precedent in this case, as Jonny_Rat says, is that they've acted against a site that links to rather than hosts the content.
to block a site that allows copyright infringment, just as a kiddie porn is a reason to block a kiddie pron site. no? don't understand why blocking an illegal site means that all sites are going to censored.
this isn't a blanket ruling that people can start blocking sites - this is a high court case.
and The Pirate Bay hosts no content - it's simply an aggregator
he said "allows"
The precedent its set is that websites that intentionally facilitate copyright infringement but don't host material will no longer be protected by that particular loophole.
It doesn't mean that we've entered a new age of internet censorship, merely that one loophole and defence is no longer permissable.
allowing something to be done isn't a reason to not act when a law is broken, is it?
and gnuty is bang on the money - if this was a site, or a reason, that people actually care about ie not a illegal thing that a lot of people on here think should be tackled, then we'd see your point. but the only precedent it has set is that people who have their content stolen online now have the ability to block those places that people get it from.
the "this precedent means the government will be censoring everything we do online from now on" argument sounds no more plausible to me than a Daily Mail reader claiming that someone smoking their first cannabis joint is on an inevitable slippery slop to heroin addiction.
linking is the arterial lifeblood of the internet
or if it isn't, the high court thinks it should be.
it's not that simple though, is it? The content that is being linked to has to be taken into account. Do you think that 'merely' linking to child pornography absolves the linker from any responsibility?
Linking necessarily implies intention - you can't remove that from consideration.
depends on the individuals doing the uploading and downloading if you follow the letter of existing law - otherwise you'd have to conclude that Tesco were enabling shoplifting by putting the goods on the shelf and making them desirable
or breweries could be implicated in drink driving or GBH cases
the law is based on individual responsibility and being able to prosecute fairly
we're just saving our ire and energy for when it's a site that's actually worth fighting over
but by then it will be TOO LATE
I would never steal it. It's immoral.
claiming copyright infringement is an easy way to get something shut down and/or tied up in legal knots
Not the fact that copyright infringement is, as we all know, illegal.
and the precedent set by this opens the door to unreasonably claiming copyright infringement as a tool to censor
and must be opposed. Whereas as I think a lot of people  accept that some censorship is ok.
I'm working on the fact that individual responsibility and fair application/prosecution of law is good
and that lobbying by one industry to protect their financial interests at the expense of the free flow of information in the digital domain ... is less good
should be tracked down, arrested, tried and sentenced in a fair trial in accordance with the laws of the land for the safety of the community at large
where piratebay was blocked. It was incredibly easy to get around, you just need to change the dns server number in your system preferences.
I don't mean the disparagingly really, but, for example, I wouldn't know how to do that, or even know that that was a thing to do in the first place. And i'm sure a lot of other people wouldn't either (though maybe that will change with a more tech-savvy younger generation).
I'm sure they High Court are well aware that people will find a way round it, but I guess the hope is that at least some people just go "fuck it, this is a pain in the arse. I'll just buy the DVD from Amazon".
is this something that's genuinely solved by using openDNS?
and find countless clear concise guides
you really dont have to be a "nerd" at all
I didn't figure it out by myself. As diabetic_lucifer says there are probably lots of guides on how to do it online.
i now donwload FLAC
Would you rather the shop was closed down or would you rather the police left it open and then simply arrested everyone leaving the shop having bought something?
Over-simplified but better the company/organisation than customers/users.
would you rather it ended up ignored or would you rather it got relentlessly mocked for being made of silly poo poo.
I was at work and not really thinking. Regretted it as soon as I wrote it. Maybe I was just lonely and wanted to talk to someone. Who knows.
When threads make it as far as analogy time (of whatever quality), it's a signal that the thread has become a glorious free-for-all.
So long as I can continue to do that, I'm placated. PLACATED.
they're going to be after the porn next. this is happening. this is happening.
possibly even launch an offensive on the real world if provoked.
especially when theres not even an option to buy the dvds or download it legally or watch it on tv here.
its 10x faster anyway...
and you wont get done for file sharing as you don't have to upload anything.
but there's nee porn on it
what is newsgroups?
big in the 1990s
roughly $15US a month.
DL speed is limited only by your internet connection, rather than the limit imposed by the host, so 1mb/second DL speed is about average for me.
You're not forced to seed anything, so as I understand it you're not breaking the law.
There's this weird notion among Slashdotty/Reddity type people that the law is some sort of algorithm that judges must strictly adhere to in an absolutely literal sense no matter what the outcome, when that's really not the case.
TPB wilfully facilitate copyright infringement. It's naive to say that it's equivalent to a barman facilitating drink driving or Tesco facilitating shoplifting because TPB certainly aren't shy about their intentions.
(I'm reminded of a passing off case about unlicensed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle clothing; the defendants there didn't do themselves any favours in the eyes of the judge by being called Counter-Feat Clothing)
It'll be completely ineffective, though, obviously. And the BPI continue to make it difficult to sympathise with them. And it's still worrying that media interests have such strong sway over copyright law rather than objective or evidence-based approaches (poor Hargreaves report). And I'd still be much happier seeing reform of copyright law to shorter duration, with decoupling of the economic and moral rights and retention/extension (infinity+1, like the French) of the latter, and for widespread adoption of smarter ways to distribute media which favour content producers... but I'm not that bothered about The Pirate Bay.
but that's exactly why we should look very carefully at cases like this. They extend what is possible with the laws as they currently stand, and as you say, it's starting to look like reform is needed (hopefully by a government that keeps the principles of open access in mind, though I doubt whether that'd be likely to happen). Legislation should be clear, and its use transparent: the more interpretation required the more potential for its misuse, and the less confidence the lay public can have in it.
That's the thing about intention: it's entirely open to abuse. If we follow along what we've both said about small changes about interpretation and precedent in law, it could be that intention becomes an important factor in such cases in the future. Intention can be misinterpreted in the most innocuous of cases; at worst, it could be misinterpreted as an outright stitch-up.
You could easily cite this case as precedent for doing some questionable stuff right now: in fact I think it's only a matter of time before we see sites being blocked on the basis of 'willful' violation of libel laws or superinjunctions.
Y The ability for the High Court to grant these sorts of injunctions against service providers (which is a wider definition than "ISP", as set out in the relevant EU directive) is clearly set out in statute (s97A CDPA 1988, fact fans).
There's precedent for blocking a site or service at the ISP level from the "Newzbin2" last year (Twentieth Century Fox v BT).
So the only thing that's "new" here is that having constructive knowledge of facilitating copyright infringement can be found from link hosting services, which was bleeding obvious given the statutory requirements for secondary copyright infringement and TPB's actions (discussed in more detail way upthread.
Apologies for a cherry picking reply - work, phone etc.
I always thought the newzbin shutdown was more inevitable because of their payment model (it was a paid service, right?). In contrast TPB's approach was to always be very obvious and open about what they were doing.
I also don't think it represents a sea change or anything; just that every use of this cranks open the remit of the law a little wider, like that goatse man's gaping anus.
It was that their defence that they were basically Google for Usenet was screwed by the fact that they had editors who compiled lists of copyright material. Thus they were found to be authorising infringement rather than mere neutral hosts, which TPB (maybe, possibly) could have argued themselves to be were it not for the entire way that they conducted their affairs.
Secondary infringement is actually pretty lenient in this regard - demonstrating objective "actual knowledge" that a service provider knew their service was being used for copyright infringement is no small burden to overcome.
'Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.'
But not (yet) any others?
not sure how the subscriber breakdown goes...
Tiscali are probably about as big as EE (Orange).
I haven't really paid attention :)
Plus you could just use a non-uk proxy I suppose anyway.
Might have to ban CG again, his current name looks almost identical to Thames at a lazy glance