9 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    Hosting illegal things: bad Saying where to get illegal things: under dispute
    - fredley 15y ago
      Linking is not a crime.
      - salvadors 15y ago
        That's a nice slogan, but it doesn't match the UK law. Linking can be a crime.
        fredley 15y ago
        Either it is or it isn't. If it is, a lot of search engines are in big trouble. Google links to almost every piece of illegal content on the web. You also have to think carefully about what a link is. Is a magnet link - essentially a hash of the content itself - a link? If so is posting the checksum of a piece of software copyright violation?
        weavejester 15y ago
        Unfortunately the law isn't so black and white, and depends a lot upon intent. Thinking about the technicalities isn't so important; what matters to the court is whether the individuals involved intended to commit a crime.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        Yes, I think the fact the google links to basically everything would work in their defense. It would be like prosecuting the people who print the telephone directory for advertising drug dealers because some of their numbers are listed.
        DanBC 15y ago
        Upthread people are mentioning images of child sexual abuse. It's important to mention that in the UK this is an absolute offence. If the image is in your possession then it doesn't matter how or why it's there - intent is irrelevant. This is important for people responsible for various servers, for example.
  - baddox 15y ago
    Child pornography: should be illegal Copyright infringement: should not be illegal
    - Flenser 15y ago
      So if companies wanted to infringe the copyright of GPLed code that should be allowed?
      - praptak 15y ago
        Yes, if in exchange for that everybody is allowed to infringe on their copyrights. And tivoization should be illegal.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        That seem kind of arbitrary , you want the government out of one thing but you want them into something else. If there was no copyright or patents then tivoization would be irrelevant anyway as the hardware could be easily copied.
        trotsky 15y ago
        things that I like doing::should be legal things I don't like other people doing::???
      - J3L2404 15y ago
        And they should be allowed to infringe on your personal data too because it's digital and therefore easily copied. And now we get to the crux of the argument. Just because everyone will eventually die does not mean you should stop seeing a doctor. Even worse message boards saying you shouldn't even be allowed to go to the doctor!
    - kaolinite 15y ago
      Copyright infringement should and must be illegal but it also must be put into perspective. Using copyright infringement to justify censorship, deportation of citizens, multi-million-dollar fines and lifetime prison sentences - that's a symptom of a broken judicial system and governments with bad priorities / corruption. Downloading films + music for personal use? Should get warnings and eventually a small fine if the issue persists (not £X per file downloaded - a download != a sale). Commercial copyright infringement? Large scale should result in a few years of jailtime at the most + seized profits. Smaller scale should vary but should be lenient with profits seized.
  - ticks 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure the former is criminal (i.e. illegal), whereas the latter is unlawful, hence why businesses have to chase copyright infringement - rather than the authorities doing it for them. The authorities only step in when it becomes a commercial operation or the activities are linked to other crimes.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    First off, I'd argue that creating an open space for people to share downloads (that aren't hosted on this open space) is not illegal. Second, even if by law it is, legality isn't binary. Both murder and stealing a bottle of milk from a shop are illegal, you wouldn't say "either you're for life inprisonment or you're against it, you can't pick and choose" would you? Not only can we pick and chose, our legal systems do pick and chose, and they always have done.
    - TomGullen 15y ago
      I don't think linking should be illegal, but en mass linking with the blatant intent for people to exploit linked to resources... perhaps it should be? I don't know. RE: your point that open space for people to link to shouldn't be illegal, is it ok then to create a CP linking website? Would you be OK with this?
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >is it ok then to create a CP linking website? // Strictly speaking I don't think it would be illegal as long as no content on the site itself contravened the law. If you can differentiate it from a search engine that gives the links in SERPs then I'd back it being made illegal though - if you can't then Google/Bing/etc. are illegal if you can make the SERPs return a link to illegal content. Indeed a link site would be useful for the police as they'd have their job done for them to some extent. A site owner with only links would on the balance of probabilities have visited child pornography sites and so, in the UK at least, have broken the law. This could lead to some verification being required for registering domains. Maybe then only domains verified by a domain registry as traceable to a person would be allowed to be routed. That could be automated. I'm not saying that's how things should go but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think that things could go that way? What I'd like to see in general is some balance. There needs to be a quid pro quo to tightening copyright restrictions. Giving us fair use privileges in the UK, like being able to make backups, format shifting and such would be a start. A reasonable copyright term, equable to patent terms would be better. If no such effort is made then it's all just business buying laws to suppress the masses AFAICT.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    Making, distributing, or possessing images of child sexual abuse is a criminal offence. It's also an absolute offence. Copyright violation (unless as part of trade) is a civil offence.
  - cft 15y ago
    Child pornography has REAL VICTIMS: children that are being exploited and their lives are RUINED FOREVER. There is no such thing for copyrights: did J.S. Bach write music in anticipation of licensing revenues? Is he a victim because he had no licensing revenue at that time? Is that comparable to an exploited 7 year old child?
- rmc 15y ago
  Very few people here would take issue with this court order if it was about a site that exclusively hosted child porn Yes, you're right. I have no problem with censoring child porn. However I have a problem censoring the Pirate Bay. The response of the courts should be proportionate and based on reason and facts. We shouldn't censor any website that dedicated to explaining how to litter (which is also a crime). We don't give the same prison sentance or the same fine to all crimes. Our courts have a long history of different crimes requireing different responses.
- jeltz 15y ago
  I have a problem with the censorship of child porn. 1) because it will and has been used as an excuse for more censorship 2) because a lot of non CP has en censored by the filters. They could censor virtually anyone with little to no risk.
  - dkersten 15y ago
    Also, from reports I've read it is both ineffective and doesn't actually get rid of the root problem, but the politicians can sleep better at night thinking they did something about it. All censorship does is push the content underground and quite possibly makes it harder to combat. The child porn argument also strikes me as an appeal to emotion.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Oh, message board legal debates; how would we occupy our days without you? I love you most of all, "If I just did X, they couldn't charge me with Y" argument! 18 USC § 2 - PRINCIPALS (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. Net net: I'd burn that stupid "DRUGS R HERE" sign.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    Agreed. To be fair, though, the USC does not apply to civil claims.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      No, which is why both the UK and the US adopted "contributory infringement" torts. (It's fuzzier in the UK.)
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    I know it's getting tricky to tell but, in theory at least, 18 USC shouldn't apply to the UK.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      You are a Wikipedia paragraph away from knowing how irrelevant that objection is. Finding it (I'm staring at it now) is left as an exercise for the reader. Another fun quirk of message board legal arguments, besides the propensity for participants to sincerely believe that only computer programmers possess the ability to reason about rule-based systems, is the belief that laws they don't like (or, more likely, that are inconvenient to their arguments) must be some terrible quirk of the fucked up US legal system. Sorry, no!
      - wallawe 15y ago
moron 15y ago
Yeah, come on. Let's not pretend this site is something other than what it so clearly is.
pippy 15y ago
Technically TPB enables copyright infringement, it doesn't engage in it. It's the users who upload torrent files (now magnet links), and the users who download material. Giving someone a loaded gun doesn't make the gun maker a killer. It's the sites users who do the illegal horse work. Ignoring the fact cutting access to the TPB is censorship, and law makers are bending to the will of companies, and the fact studies have shown that pirated material promotes and increases profits, people will always find a way. Bringing a hard drive to a friends house will allow me to pirate far more than downloading ever could.

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.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  Hosting illegal things: bad Saying where to get illegal things: under dispute
  - fredley 15y ago
    Linking is not a crime.
    - salvadors 15y ago
      That's a nice slogan, but it doesn't match the UK law. Linking can be a crime.
      - fredley 15y ago
        Either it is or it isn't. If it is, a lot of search engines are in big trouble. Google links to almost every piece of illegal content on the web. You also have to think carefully about what a link is. Is a magnet link - essentially a hash of the content itself - a link? If so is posting the checksum of a piece of software copyright violation?
        weavejester 15y ago
        Unfortunately the law isn't so black and white, and depends a lot upon intent. Thinking about the technicalities isn't so important; what matters to the court is whether the individuals involved intended to commit a crime.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        Yes, I think the fact the google links to basically everything would work in their defense. It would be like prosecuting the people who print the telephone directory for advertising drug dealers because some of their numbers are listed.
        DanBC 15y ago
        Upthread people are mentioning images of child sexual abuse. It's important to mention that in the UK this is an absolute offence. If the image is in your possession then it doesn't matter how or why it's there - intent is irrelevant. This is important for people responsible for various servers, for example.
- baddox 15y ago
  Child pornography: should be illegal Copyright infringement: should not be illegal
  - Flenser 15y ago
    So if companies wanted to infringe the copyright of GPLed code that should be allowed?
    - praptak 15y ago
      Yes, if in exchange for that everybody is allowed to infringe on their copyrights. And tivoization should be illegal.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        That seem kind of arbitrary , you want the government out of one thing but you want them into something else. If there was no copyright or patents then tivoization would be irrelevant anyway as the hardware could be easily copied.
        trotsky 15y ago
        things that I like doing::should be legal things I don't like other people doing::???
    - J3L2404 15y ago
      And they should be allowed to infringe on your personal data too because it's digital and therefore easily copied. And now we get to the crux of the argument. Just because everyone will eventually die does not mean you should stop seeing a doctor. Even worse message boards saying you shouldn't even be allowed to go to the doctor!
  - kaolinite 15y ago
    Copyright infringement should and must be illegal but it also must be put into perspective. Using copyright infringement to justify censorship, deportation of citizens, multi-million-dollar fines and lifetime prison sentences - that's a symptom of a broken judicial system and governments with bad priorities / corruption. Downloading films + music for personal use? Should get warnings and eventually a small fine if the issue persists (not £X per file downloaded - a download != a sale). Commercial copyright infringement? Large scale should result in a few years of jailtime at the most + seized profits. Smaller scale should vary but should be lenient with profits seized.
- ticks 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure the former is criminal (i.e. illegal), whereas the latter is unlawful, hence why businesses have to chase copyright infringement - rather than the authorities doing it for them. The authorities only step in when it becomes a commercial operation or the activities are linked to other crimes.
- corin_ 15y ago
  First off, I'd argue that creating an open space for people to share downloads (that aren't hosted on this open space) is not illegal. Second, even if by law it is, legality isn't binary. Both murder and stealing a bottle of milk from a shop are illegal, you wouldn't say "either you're for life inprisonment or you're against it, you can't pick and choose" would you? Not only can we pick and chose, our legal systems do pick and chose, and they always have done.
  - TomGullen 15y ago
    I don't think linking should be illegal, but en mass linking with the blatant intent for people to exploit linked to resources... perhaps it should be? I don't know. RE: your point that open space for people to link to shouldn't be illegal, is it ok then to create a CP linking website? Would you be OK with this?
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      >is it ok then to create a CP linking website? // Strictly speaking I don't think it would be illegal as long as no content on the site itself contravened the law. If you can differentiate it from a search engine that gives the links in SERPs then I'd back it being made illegal though - if you can't then Google/Bing/etc. are illegal if you can make the SERPs return a link to illegal content. Indeed a link site would be useful for the police as they'd have their job done for them to some extent. A site owner with only links would on the balance of probabilities have visited child pornography sites and so, in the UK at least, have broken the law. This could lead to some verification being required for registering domains. Maybe then only domains verified by a domain registry as traceable to a person would be allowed to be routed. That could be automated. I'm not saying that's how things should go but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think that things could go that way? What I'd like to see in general is some balance. There needs to be a quid pro quo to tightening copyright restrictions. Giving us fair use privileges in the UK, like being able to make backups, format shifting and such would be a start. A reasonable copyright term, equable to patent terms would be better. If no such effort is made then it's all just business buying laws to suppress the masses AFAICT.
- DanBC 15y ago
  Making, distributing, or possessing images of child sexual abuse is a criminal offence. It's also an absolute offence. Copyright violation (unless as part of trade) is a civil offence.
- cft 15y ago
  Child pornography has REAL VICTIMS: children that are being exploited and their lives are RUINED FOREVER. There is no such thing for copyrights: did J.S. Bach write music in anticipation of licensing revenues? Is he a victim because he had no licensing revenue at that time? Is that comparable to an exploited 7 year old child?
rmc 15y ago
Very few people here would take issue with this court order if it was about a site that exclusively hosted child porn Yes, you're right. I have no problem with censoring child porn. However I have a problem censoring the Pirate Bay. The response of the courts should be proportionate and based on reason and facts. We shouldn't censor any website that dedicated to explaining how to litter (which is also a crime). We don't give the same prison sentance or the same fine to all crimes. Our courts have a long history of different crimes requireing different responses.
jeltz 15y ago
I have a problem with the censorship of child porn. 1) because it will and has been used as an excuse for more censorship 2) because a lot of non CP has en censored by the filters. They could censor virtually anyone with little to no risk.
- dkersten 15y ago
  Also, from reports I've read it is both ineffective and doesn't actually get rid of the root problem, but the politicians can sleep better at night thinking they did something about it. All censorship does is push the content underground and quite possibly makes it harder to combat. The child porn argument also strikes me as an appeal to emotion.
tptacek 15y ago
Oh, message board legal debates; how would we occupy our days without you? I love you most of all, "If I just did X, they couldn't charge me with Y" argument! 18 USC § 2 - PRINCIPALS (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. Net net: I'd burn that stupid "DRUGS R HERE" sign.
- Locke1689 15y ago
  Agreed. To be fair, though, the USC does not apply to civil claims.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    No, which is why both the UK and the US adopted "contributory infringement" torts. (It's fuzzier in the UK.)
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  I know it's getting tricky to tell but, in theory at least, 18 USC shouldn't apply to the UK.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    You are a Wikipedia paragraph away from knowing how irrelevant that objection is. Finding it (I'm staring at it now) is left as an exercise for the reader. Another fun quirk of message board legal arguments, besides the propensity for participants to sincerely believe that only computer programmers possess the ability to reason about rule-based systems, is the belief that laws they don't like (or, more likely, that are inconvenient to their arguments) must be some terrible quirk of the fucked up US legal system. Sorry, no!
    - wallawe 15y ago

moron 15y ago

Yeah, come on. Let's not pretend this site is something other than what it so clearly is.

pippy 15y ago

Technically TPB enables copyright infringement, it doesn't engage in it. It's the users who upload torrent files (now magnet links), and the users who download material. Giving someone a loaded gun doesn't make the gun maker a killer. It's the sites users who do the illegal horse work. Ignoring the fact cutting access to the TPB is censorship, and law makers are bending to the will of companies, and the fact studies have shown that pirated material promotes and increases profits, people will always find a way. Bringing a hard drive to a friends house will allow me to pirate far more than downloading ever could.