12 ms·

The ruling is mostly full of shit: Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists I'd like to see evidence

The ruling is mostly full of shit: Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists I'd like to see evidence to back this up, innocent until proven guilty and all. The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale No, it doesn't. TPB doesn't provide any content at all. Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality. Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works According to wikipedia, TPB earnings in 2006 were $102,035.05 US, and expenses in 2009 were $112,590.40 US (couldn't find data for the same year) but they can't be making a huge amount of profit on those margins. But the thing that really gets me is our government giving itself power to censor the internet.

scott_w 15y ago
That was the BPI spokesman (the UK equivalent of the RIAA). Those quotes were not part of the judgement. The judge merely applied the Digital Britain Act, an act rushed through at the end of the last Parliament (in 2010) in the run-up to the general election. It got a lot less scrutiny than bills of this nature usually get.
- rwmj 15y ago
  I've actually met the head of the BPI, and he's as mad in person as he appears in print. For once I completely believe these quotes were not made up by the journalist interviewing him.
alexchamberlain 15y ago
The government and the judiciary are independent.
- drucken 15y ago
  Only in the sense of execution/implementation. In the UK system, without a written/arms-length constitution, the judiciary is manipulated or beholden to any newly created laws of the land, especially in civil matters. If there are no protections in law, especially rushed laws, there is little the judiciary can do to defend or even argue one interest versus another. This is surprisingly common, particularly in matters of sovereignty, security or trade (new trade of course being in "intellectual property"). Recent examples include the slew of UK-US extraditions on non-actionable behaviour in the UK.
  - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
    I'm reading this as the UK doesn't have a system of judicial review, i.e. the courts being able to strike down legislation as being non-compliant with some prior and of presumably higher authority law. Is this correct?
    - drucken 15y ago
      Correct. "Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, the English doctrine of parliamentary supremacy means that the law does not know judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom), except in a few cases where primary legislation is contrary to the law of the European Union." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law
      - hythloday 15y ago
        But not the whole story - the UK has jury nullification[0], last tested in the aftermath of the Falklands War. The "few" cases include laws in contravention of the Human Rights Act, which has been used to get judicial review (not necessarily successfully) of issues such as "do prisoners have a right to hardcore pornography", "does a university fee of more than £3000/year act as a barrier to education", and "what is the legal right to privacy"--i.e. a fairly large surface area. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#England
    - rmc 15y ago
      In general sense, yes. Parliament can (legally) do what it wants. There is no list of things parliament cannot do, nor a list of things that it only can do. However the UK is part of the European Union, and the Council of Europe, and so there are higher courts (outside the UK) which can give out about the UK, and force them to do things. Some of these obligations are part of UK law, but they have to do a weird legal hack thing. E.g. if a law would go against one of the European Human Rights Treaties, a court can issue a declaration that the law is not in compliance, however the court cannot throw out the law, nor strike it down.
- anamax 15y ago
  > The government and the judiciary are independent. In many ways and at many times, yes, but ....
VMG 15y ago
> Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality. I don't understand that argument - who ever claimed that TPB only has infringing material? > According to wikipedia, TPB earnings in 2006 were $102,035.05 US, and expenses in 2009 were $112,590.40 US (couldn't find data for the same year) but they can't be making a huge amount of profit on those margins. Weird that they don't publish the numbers themselves. I wonder what the reason might be...
- driverdan 15y ago
  > Weird that they don't publish the numbers themselves. I wonder what the reason might be... They're a private company. They're under no obligation to provide the public with their financial data.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - VMG 15y ago
    > They're a private company For-Profit?
    - drucken 15y ago
      "The Pirate Bay was started by the swedish anti copyright organization Piratbyrån in the late 2003, but in October 2004 it separated became run by dedicated individuals. In 2006 the site changed it's ownership yet again. Today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles and can be contacted using the contact form." https://thepiratebay.se/about https://thepiratebay.se/about
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - VMG 15y ago
citricsquid 15y ago
> No, it doesn't. TPB doesn't provide any content at all. Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality. And my drug dealer gave $50 to a pregnant woman so that she could get a taxi to the hospital. If you want to argue why this ruling is wrong you should address the issues of censorship, arguing that The Pirate Bay isn't a site built around copyright infringement (which it is and the founders openly admit this) just does a dis-service to the real problem here (censorship). TPB is a for-profit copyright infringement enabling enterprise, that's why it exists, arguing otherwise is not worth your energy (because ultimately, what does it matter if it enables copyright infringement or not? So do most websites that don't intend on doing that) instead argue that any government should not be disabling access to a website.
- corin_ 15y ago
  The issue is not with censorship, it's with what they are censoring. Very few people here would take issue with this court order if it was about a site that exclusively hosted child porn. Therefore yes, the context of "is what TBP does illegal?" To extend your (frankly poor) metaphor, he wouldn't be a drug dealer if all he did was hold up a sign pointing you towards your nearest drug dealers and he never actually gave you any drugs.
  - citricsquid 15y ago
    Child pornography: illegal Copyright infringement: illegal censoring child porn websites: right, censoring copyright infringement website: wrong. Not sure I understand the difference? Either you're for censorship of websites, or you're against it, you can't pick and choose.
    - runjake 15y ago
      You're thinking in legal terms, but in this case, the argument is one of morals. CP and CI are galaxies apart morally, imho. Also, people's views on copyright infringement seem to immediately swell when it's their copyright being infringed upon.
andyakb 15y ago
Their earnings have likely increased recently, but with their switch to magnet links, they have to have saved an obscene amount of money in terms of bandwidth costs, so their costs have likely gone down significantly. However, the point still stands that, yea, nobody is getting rich off of this, but there is likely a decent amount of profit being made.
anigbrowl 15y ago
The ruling is mostly full of shit: Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists I'd like to see evidence to back this up, innocent until proven guilty and all. FTA: "Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists," the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) said. That's the BPI's comment on the ruling, not the ruling itself. This [1] is the original opinion in the case, to which this ruling refers, and which will take some time to read. It shouldn't be necessary to remind folks that the UK doesn't have a constitutional guarantee of free speech like the US constitution odes, and commercial speech is thus subject to regulation. Kudos to ZDnet [2][3] for including a link to the court's opinion in their story; any media site that reports on a court case without linking to or identifying it by name is likely not worth your time. 1. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html 2. http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/tech-tech-boom-10017860/uk-isps-ordered-to-block-pirate-bay-website-10026040/ http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/tech-tech-boom-10017860/uk-isps... 3. http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2012/02/21/the-pirate-bay-infringes-copyright-high-court-decides-40095087/ http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2012/02/21...
huhtenberg 15y ago
> The ruling is mostly full of shit: It's obvious that the ruling is full of shit just from the verdict.

The ruling is mostly full of shit: Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists I'd like to see evidence to back this up, innocent until proven guilty and all. The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale No, it doesn't. TPB doesn't provide any content at all. Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality. Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works According to wikipedia, TPB earnings in 2006 were $102,035.05 US, and expenses in 2009 were $112,590.40 US (couldn't find data for the same year) but they can't be making a huge amount of profit on those margins. But the thing that really gets me is our government giving itself power to censor the internet.

scott_w 15y ago

That was the BPI spokesman (the UK equivalent of the RIAA). Those quotes were not part of the judgement. The judge merely applied the Digital Britain Act, an act rushed through at the end of the last Parliament (in 2010) in the run-up to the general election. It got a lot less scrutiny than bills of this nature usually get.

rwmj 15y ago
I've actually met the head of the BPI, and he's as mad in person as he appears in print. For once I completely believe these quotes were not made up by the journalist interviewing him.

alexchamberlain 15y ago

The government and the judiciary are independent.

drucken 15y ago
Only in the sense of execution/implementation. In the UK system, without a written/arms-length constitution, the judiciary is manipulated or beholden to any newly created laws of the land, especially in civil matters. If there are no protections in law, especially rushed laws, there is little the judiciary can do to defend or even argue one interest versus another. This is surprisingly common, particularly in matters of sovereignty, security or trade (new trade of course being in "intellectual property"). Recent examples include the slew of UK-US extraditions on non-actionable behaviour in the UK.
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  I'm reading this as the UK doesn't have a system of judicial review, i.e. the courts being able to strike down legislation as being non-compliant with some prior and of presumably higher authority law. Is this correct?
  - drucken 15y ago
    Correct. "Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, the English doctrine of parliamentary supremacy means that the law does not know judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom), except in a few cases where primary legislation is contrary to the law of the European Union." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law
    - hythloday 15y ago
      But not the whole story - the UK has jury nullification[0], last tested in the aftermath of the Falklands War. The "few" cases include laws in contravention of the Human Rights Act, which has been used to get judicial review (not necessarily successfully) of issues such as "do prisoners have a right to hardcore pornography", "does a university fee of more than £3000/year act as a barrier to education", and "what is the legal right to privacy"--i.e. a fairly large surface area. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#England
  - rmc 15y ago
    In general sense, yes. Parliament can (legally) do what it wants. There is no list of things parliament cannot do, nor a list of things that it only can do. However the UK is part of the European Union, and the Council of Europe, and so there are higher courts (outside the UK) which can give out about the UK, and force them to do things. Some of these obligations are part of UK law, but they have to do a weird legal hack thing. E.g. if a law would go against one of the European Human Rights Treaties, a court can issue a declaration that the law is not in compliance, however the court cannot throw out the law, nor strike it down.
anamax 15y ago
> The government and the judiciary are independent. In many ways and at many times, yes, but ....

VMG 15y ago

> Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality. I don't understand that argument - who ever claimed that TPB only has infringing material? > According to wikipedia, TPB earnings in 2006 were $102,035.05 US, and expenses in 2009 were $112,590.40 US (couldn't find data for the same year) but they can't be making a huge amount of profit on those margins. Weird that they don't publish the numbers themselves. I wonder what the reason might be...

driverdan 15y ago
> Weird that they don't publish the numbers themselves. I wonder what the reason might be... They're a private company. They're under no obligation to provide the public with their financial data.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- VMG 15y ago
  > They're a private company For-Profit?
  - drucken 15y ago
    "The Pirate Bay was started by the swedish anti copyright organization Piratbyrån in the late 2003, but in October 2004 it separated became run by dedicated individuals. In 2006 the site changed it's ownership yet again. Today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles and can be contacted using the contact form." https://thepiratebay.se/about https://thepiratebay.se/about
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - VMG 15y ago

citricsquid 15y ago

> No, it doesn't. TPB doesn't provide any content at all. Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality. And my drug dealer gave $50 to a pregnant woman so that she could get a taxi to the hospital. If you want to argue why this ruling is wrong you should address the issues of censorship, arguing that The Pirate Bay isn't a site built around copyright infringement (which it is and the founders openly admit this) just does a dis-service to the real problem here (censorship). TPB is a for-profit copyright infringement enabling enterprise, that's why it exists, arguing otherwise is not worth your energy (because ultimately, what does it matter if it enables copyright infringement or not? So do most websites that don't intend on doing that) instead argue that any government should not be disabling access to a website.

corin_ 15y ago
The issue is not with censorship, it's with what they are censoring. Very few people here would take issue with this court order if it was about a site that exclusively hosted child porn. Therefore yes, the context of "is what TBP does illegal?" To extend your (frankly poor) metaphor, he wouldn't be a drug dealer if all he did was hold up a sign pointing you towards your nearest drug dealers and he never actually gave you any drugs.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  Child pornography: illegal Copyright infringement: illegal censoring child porn websites: right, censoring copyright infringement website: wrong. Not sure I understand the difference? Either you're for censorship of websites, or you're against it, you can't pick and choose.
  - runjake 15y ago
    You're thinking in legal terms, but in this case, the argument is one of morals. CP and CI are galaxies apart morally, imho. Also, people's views on copyright infringement seem to immediately swell when it's their copyright being infringed upon.

andyakb 15y ago

Their earnings have likely increased recently, but with their switch to magnet links, they have to have saved an obscene amount of money in terms of bandwidth costs, so their costs have likely gone down significantly. However, the point still stands that, yea, nobody is getting rich off of this, but there is likely a decent amount of profit being made.

anigbrowl 15y ago

The ruling is mostly full of shit: Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists I'd like to see evidence to back this up, innocent until proven guilty and all. FTA: "Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists," the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) said. That's the BPI's comment on the ruling, not the ruling itself. This [1] is the original opinion in the case, to which this ruling refers, and which will take some time to read. It shouldn't be necessary to remind folks that the UK doesn't have a constitutional guarantee of free speech like the US constitution odes, and commercial speech is thus subject to regulation. Kudos to ZDnet [2][3] for including a link to the court's opinion in their story; any media site that reports on a court case without linking to or identifying it by name is likely not worth your time. 1. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html 2. http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/tech-tech-boom-10017860/uk-isps-ordered-to-block-pirate-bay-website-10026040/ http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/tech-tech-boom-10017860/uk-isps... 3. http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2012/02/21/the-pirate-bay-infringes-copyright-high-court-decides-40095087/ http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2012/02/21...

huhtenberg 15y ago

> The ruling is mostly full of shit: It's obvious that the ruling is full of shit just from the verdict.