Shared publicly  - 
 
This judgment has been circulating lately. Basically, it says that The Pirate Bay & its users are guilty of copyright infringement against various media companies.

According to +The Guardian's story, this means that UK ISPs have been ordered to block access to TPB, but I don't see that order in this judgment. What authorizes such an order? That's a SOPA-level problem.

I also find it rather troubling that the court rules ex parte that, although this is a clearly a finding materially against TPB, they don't feel like bothering to serve TPB or its UK users to let them defend themselves, because according to the court they would probably not be interested in defending themselves and eh it'd be a hassle to actually serve them so why bother. That seems like a complete abdication of due process rights to me, and I hope it's overturned on those grounds alone.
3
1
Sai's profile photoPete Bleackley's profile photoFilip H.F. Slagter's profile photoSam Stutter's profile photo
13 comments
 
How important are what we think of as due process rights in UK law? They're pretty damned important in the US, but the US isn't directly involved here...
Sai
 
+Albert Andersen I don't know UK law at all except where it coincides with US law. Hopefully another reader will chip in.
 
Interesting to see how this plays out
I hope other will chip in to will share to see
 
In the Netherlands there was an ex-parte verdict against the Dutch PirateParty regarding a TPB proxy they ran.
They sued back though: http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-sues-hollywood-backed-group-over-pirate-bay-censorship-120416/

Waiting for its verdict on the 10th of May..

'Coincidentally' the same day there will be another related verdict against several Dutch ISPs, involving the same anti-piracy group "Brein" which will decide whether or not they'll have to block TPB as well, based on the IPs delivered by Brein.
 
The case isn't between TBP and the copyright holders, but between the copyright holders and the ISPs, with the culpability of TBP as evidence, so the order to block is this judgement.

I imagine the thoughts of the judge are that, when it comes to interdiction, speed is of the essence, and getting bogged down attempting to find out who are, and then serve, the TBP owners (who don't appear to recognise the authority of the court), when it's not actually required, nor has actually been done anywhere else, is a waste of time.

Perhaps an analogy is that this is an arrest, to prevent TBP from continuing in the UK until an actual criminal case can be brought against them.

+Pete Bleackley Ah, but would an English (there's no such thing as UK law BTW) judge accept the appeal?
Sai
 
+Sam Stutter It seems to me not a "waste of time" to try to serve someone for their own defense whom you're accusing of a crime. :-| You can't arrest someone without allowing them to defend themselves; that's just criminal kidnapping.

What law allows a civil suit to force ISPs to block a third party site because the third party has been accused of copyright infringement? I thought normally the most you're allowed to do is sue the infringing party, and if you win you can take down their servers, recover damages, etc.
 
+Sam Stutter So the issue comes down to "If a court orders A to curtail the activities of B, what right does B have to contest it?"
 
I'm only speculating here.

Slightly OT: when you get arrested you don't defend yourself immediately, but rather in the following criminal court case.

+Sai The law (I think) is the Article 8 thingy;
bring an action for damages and/or apply for an injunction;

the injunction here being against the ISPs to block access. Perhaps there is also a gentleman's agreement here (although there isn't any evidence to suggest it).

+Pete Bleackley I think what the issue here is that, this being a legal grey area (i.e. the injunction isn't curtailing the actions of TBP, but rather they are adversely affected by the curtailing of the actions of the ISPs) B is not required to contest it. Of course, TBP's owners can come and file for damages because they're being adversely affected, in which case they've landed into a trap and can be tried criminally.

I find the "screw you" attitude of the judge quite refreshing :D

Edit because they're not actually the subject of the ruling, there's no requirement in English law for anybody other than the ISPs and copyright holders to know the case even took place. In other words: you may not like it folks, but it's 100% legal and proper.
Sai
 
+Sam Stutter Actually I would say that UK TPB users are the subject of the ruling, in that the court is forbidding them to do what is otherwise well within their rights: to access TPB.
 
+Pete Bleackley Just to clarify, regards the right to appeal, a judge probably wouldn't accept one on grounds of due process. On the subject of "adversely affected", I've just realised that this is what the fourth point in the introduction states.

+Sai As I interpret it, the judge is saying it's not legal to serve the users because it would be disproportionate. By appearing in court, TBP users essentially plead guilty to copyright infringement (because they actually have the data, rather than just orchestrate it) and would require the serving of thousands of individuals.

Edit: You're only adversely affected if you're performing a criminal action
Sai
 
+Sam Stutter You're making a false assumption: that all TPB users are copyright infringing. That's simply not true. There is plenty of content on TPB that is perfectly legal to share, and users who share it. One of those users could well have an interest in coming forth to defend their right to conduct perfectly legal file sharing without in any way admitting that they are guilty of copyright infringement.

That's what the opposition might claim, but last I checked even England has a presumption of innocence, so they'd have to prove that that individual user was in fact guilty. And that user would be adversely affected.
Add a comment...