Print 50 comment(s) - last by Boingo Twang.. on Feb 28 at 1:05 PM

  (Source: Tropiganda)
To "approve" of piracy is to lawbreak: world's top torrent site is found guilty of speechcrime

The world's top torrent site The Pirate Bay has long struggled with legal issues [1][2][3].  It thought it left those problems behind when it switched from physically hosting torrents to hosting only magnet links to downloadable torrents.  But an ardently pro-big media British justice has turned up the heat on the site, accusing it of thoughtcrime and speechcrime.

I. Judge Rules The Pirate Bay is Guilty of "Thoughtcrime"

The Hon. Mr. Justice Richard David Arnold, 51, a member of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division, and long standing QC ("Queen's Counsel") ruled that the site's decision to "approve" of piracy was in and of itself illegal. 

In a lawsuit brought against very British internet service providers by the nation's top music labels, Justice Arnold rules:

In my judgment, the operators of TPB do authorise its users' infringing acts of copying and communication to the public. They go far beyond merely enabling or assisting. On any view, they "sanction, approve and countenance" the infringements of copyright committed by its users. But in my view they also purport to grant users the right to do the acts complained of. It is no defence that they openly defy the rights of the copyright owners. I would add that I consider the present case to be indistinguishable from 20C Fox v Newzbin in this respect. If anything, it is a stronger case.

In the present case, the matters I have considered in relation to authorisation lead to the conclusion that the operators of TPB induce, incite or persuade its users to commit infringements of copyright, and that they and the users act pursuant to a common design to infringe. It is also relevant in this regard that the operators profit from their activities. Thus they are jointly liable for the infringements committed by users.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that both users and the operators of TPB infringe the copyrights of the Claimants (and those they represent) in the UK.

In other words, employees of The Pirate Bay wrote something seemingly in favor of piracy -- or critical of "big media" -- which coupled with the facts that they post links directing users to files -- which may or may not be illegally shared -- they're automatically guilty of copyright infringement.

Essentially the ruling finds the website guilty of thoughtcrime (by the fact that the administrators do "approve" of piracy, a belief) and speechcrime (allowing/encouraging users to post written links to infringing content -- induction and incitement).

Justice Arnold, appointed in 2008, has been a key friend of big media, moving aggressively in 2011 to force British ISPs to block Newzbin, a forums site which movie and music studios claimed was promoting piracy.  Like The Pirate Bay, Newzbin didn't contain any actual content, but merely indexed (allowed links) to a variety of content -- some of which indeed may have been infringed.

Judge Arnold
Justice Richard Arnold is a key ally of big media in British court.
[Image Source: 11 South Square]

The British Justice authored a book titled Performers' Rights.

While he has generally sided with big media in piracy cases, Justice Arnold did last year earn the appreciation of at least one major internet player when he ruled in eBay, Inc. (EBAY) of civil liability in a counterfeiting case brought by French cosmetics manufacturer L'Oreal (ETR:OR).

II. British Gov't Vows War on Piracy, But Allows Big Media to Pirate

The Pirate Bay civil ruling clears the way for the music labels in the suit to force Britain's top internet service providers to block The Pirate Bay.  For now, this will likely not effect the site's accessibility in the nation much, given that the site's compaction thanks to ditching torrents and switching to magnet links has allowed for easy mirroring by volunteers worldwide.

Ultimately, though the ruling could serve as a prelude to steep fines or even criminal penalties against citizens who host the site, and in doing so commit the same "thoughtcrime" and "speechcrime" the site was found guilty of.

The Pirate Bay
Britain's top music labels are allowed to pirate independent artists' works for profit, but The Pirate Bay is poised to be banned for simply supporting filesharing.  [Image Source: ByteLove]

Britain is well known for its extreme copyright enforcement.  Britain's RIAA equivalent -- the Performing Right Society (PRS) -- threatened to sue a grocery store employee for singing in public, and only backed down after public outcry.  The British government has attempted to push a $1B USD equivalent of the U.S. controversial SOPA; meanwhile British courts endorsed music labels' cash-or-we'll-sue letter writting campaing, which sought protection fees from 30,000 UK citizens.

British officials have also joined the U.S. in pushing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a copyright pact, drafted in secret, that enacts new penalties for  filesharing.  The nation's government has also tried several times to enact a policy that would force ISPs to terminate users who pirate after "three strikes".

The Pirate Bay, in response to the loss in the Chancery High Court case, parroted and mocked the English Justice's ruling, writing:

In my judgment, the courts of [United Kingdom of Censorship] do authorise its judges' acts of corruption and being technically uneducated. They go far beyond merely enabling and assisting.

I conclude that both judges' and the politicians of [United Kingdom of Censorship] infringe the rights of the people... in the world.

Ironically, there is some validity to those accusations.

Britain is among the nations whose laws allow big media to "claim" the works of independent artists, pirating them for-profit, without fear of legal recourse. Independent musicians must plead with the member corporations for their cut, a process that can often take years.  The scheme pulls in hundreds of millions globally for big media corporations in the U.S., Britain, Canada, and elsewhere.

Aside from killing public piracy while preserving loopholes for their own seizure of copyrighted content, big media's other major objective is to ban backup copies.  That would allow them to execute their ultimate goal of expanding users "choices", by forcing them to repurchase content they already own.  Top media corporations contend that making backups of CDs or DVDs you legally own is akin to "stealing" a copy via piracy or petty theft.

Sources: High Court of Justice Chancery Division, The Pirate Bay

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Time to get real
By EricMartello on 2/21/2012 10:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
They're not facilitating piracy; they're allowing people to share media with each other.

File Sharing =/= Piracy

The copyright laws are unjust and not in the best interests of the people, and therefore are null and void. Anyone who attempts to impose and/or enforce unjust laws would be guilty of treason. It's that simple. If you're willing to roll over and allow public officials to abuse or misuse their power, you are just as guilty of treason as they are in my opinion.

RE: Time to get real
By JasonMick on 2/21/2012 11:09:43 PM , Rating: 3
The copyright laws are unjust and not in the best interests of the people, and therefore are null and void. Anyone who attempts to impose and/or enforce unjust laws would be guilty of treason. It's that simple. If you're willing to roll over and allow public officials to abuse or misuse their power, you are just as guilty of treason as they are in my opinion.

This, and also there's the issue of people in glass houses throwing stones.

I find it funny that the major record labels have themselves essentially admitted to pirating hundreds of millions in content. In Canada they had to pay independent artists a settlement $45M USD, after stealing their work for years. But in the U.S. and Britain, the legal code has largely allowed them to do this without fear of prosecution.

And Hollywood, for all its talk of "compensating artists", typically is allowed to engage in accounting practices that would get people in other sectors thrown in prison. By billing themselves, they can make hidden profits, while showing net losses, hence screwing the majority of actors out of ever receiving royalties, even on famous work. Just ask the guy who played Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi.

I guess all those threats and bribes to Congresspeople are paying off??

I'm not pro-piracy, but I'm anti-hypocrisy.

RE: Time to get real
By messele on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By seamonkey79 on 2/22/2012 7:18:27 AM , Rating: 3
The situation being talked about is the group of actors that sign up for a lower 'wage' and a higher percentage of the profits from the movie, which is then so atrociously mathed out that a movie that cost $150,000,000 to make, sold $500,000,000 in ticket sales, lost $75,000,000, eliminating any percentage that the actors in the movie signed up for.

RE: Time to get real
By Solandri on 2/22/2012 1:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Time to get real
By Beenthere on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By ShieTar on 2/22/2012 9:02:04 AM , Rating: 3
98% of society supports copyright laws. Only the vocal minority are in denial about copyright laws.

And yet those 2% that disagree are about to ruin the movie industry? And justify that that industry sets aside billions to buy new laws?

I am 34 years old, and I have yet to meet a single person that has never in their life copied a movie or music CD, pages out of a book, recorded a television show or put their kid into a mickey mouse costume without written agreement from the disney corporation.

Here in germany, we even pay a fixed fee on every copy machine, CD/DVD writer and even external harddrive, which is handed over to the Print, Music and Movie Industries. The law for this was justified by statistics that showed that basically everybody will use these devices for copyright infringements. And there never were too many protests against these fees, because nobody really disagrees with this assumption.

Of course the act of copying itself remains illegal, even after you paid your fees.

RE: Time to get real
By Kurz on 2/22/2012 9:51:39 AM , Rating: 2
So whats the point of collecting the added fee?
Crimanalizing your people before they did anything wrong and still hitting them with fines and jail time... Wow what a free country.

RE: Time to get real
By nafhan on 2/22/2012 10:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
Further, pretending that 98% of people care or understand much of anything about copyright is ridiculous. People want content, and generally as long as the copyright nonsense doesn't impact them, they don't care about it.

RE: Time to get real
By Gondor on 2/22/2012 9:51:44 AM , Rating: 1
Aren't you the clown from the Xbitlabs website ?

RE: Time to get real
By Theoz on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By JasonMick on 2/22/2012 4:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
This may be the stupidest comment I have ever read on this site. Congrats!

Actually you misunderstood the symbol "=/=" whose context determines whether it means "never equals" or "does not always equal".

You can argue

(?i:Filesharing(i) == piracy)> (?j:Filesharing(j) != piracy)
i.e. "Filesharing is typically piracy."

(?i:Filesharing(i) == piracy)< (?j:Filesharing(j) != piracy)
i.e. "Filesharing is typically not piracy."

But in either instance you can say

Filesharing =/= Piracy

...due to the fact that it does not ALWAYS piracy. (For example, World of Warcraft shared legitimate updates via torrent -- authorized by Blizzard Activision. And multiple universities use torrents to share files with students.)

Please read:

Again, you are very opinionated, which I appreciate, but if you're going to go blasting readers for their comments, please be sure you understand the fundamental concepts involved, e.g. in this case symbolic logic.
Copyright law is clearly within the best interest of the people because it encourages the creation of creative works by allowing authors of these works to profit from them. Do we always implement copyright law perfectly? Of course not, but the basic underpinnings should be supported and should include classifying the sharing of copyrighted materials as piracy.

Again, you misunderstood his point. His point was that there is a great deal of legitimate filesharing. Your misunderstanding of his symbolic logic skewed your response.

RE: Time to get real
By Theoz on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By JasonMick on 2/23/2012 7:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
Consequently, I vehemently disagree that I was to interpret his point as that "there is a great deal of legitimate file sharing." If that were actually his point, he would not have made the preposterous statement that copyright law should be generally null and void. No one has ever made the point that copyright law should extend to legitimate file sharing, however, the effects of some laws (SOPA/PIPA) have had the effect that some legitimate file sharing would be chilled.

I would assume he's advocating a rewrite of copyright law. Operating under that assumption, you can agree or not agree -- that's the nature of democracy.

My personally perspective is that creators need to be protected and thieves need to be punished.

That said, there's a huge consistency problem under the current system in that large corporate interest can seize the copyrighted works of small independent artists. Further, the punishments regarding file sharing are overly punitive and need to be brought back down to Earth.

I don't think it'd be practical to throw out copyright or patent laws, but I think a rewrite on some problem areas (see above) would be common sense.

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki