TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Will New UK Censorship Impact Torrent Sites?

Last week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced a new porn filtering system that will go online sometime during the coming year. However, the blockades, which are intended to deal with porn, may end up developing into a backdoor ban on BitTorrent and other file-sharing related sites.

Online censorship is a controversial subject. It’s often used in an attempt to ‘protect’ a group of people from something, but it rarely works as intended, and once in place feature-creep often sets in.

Unfortunately, in the rush to censor content for the claimed good of some group or other, the unintended consequences of these systems usually take a back seat.

In 2008, the UK Internet Watch Foundation (a private company operating confidentially) added a Wikipedia page to their list with the result that all Wikipedia visitors from Cleanfeed-using ISPs used one of a handful of IP addresses, leading to user verification issues and bans.

Another example closer to home involves UK ISP TalkTalk. They offer their customers a filtering system already and TorrentFreak – strictly a news resource – is unavailable when customers turn on the option to block file-sharing sites.

Not all such consequences are unintended, however. The new anti-porn lists, which are opt-out, may end up instituting a block on torrent and other filesharing-related sites. The lists were announced along with a piece by Prime Minister David Cameron in the Daily Mail newspaper (which has plenty of sexually-charged content of its own), who had run a morality campaign on the topic for the last few months.

Torrent site blocking has been postulated occasionally and has been implemented in the UK via High Court orders, which have both over-reached and been easily circumvented. Site blocks in other countries have also been tried, mainly against the claimed “root of all evil”, The Pirate Bay, albeit with extremely limited success (seriously).

The lengthy and costly High Court approach may not be needed now though. Many torrent sites contain, to a greater or lesser extent, pornographic content, as well as more acceptable (but likely still to be blocked) ‘adult’ or ‘mature’ content. As such, we can only assume that torrent sites will be included initially or added later on.

This will be another blow against independent artists and creators who have leveraged the power of torrents to distribute content. And like all other attempts to legislate some personal interpretation of morality, it’s doomed to fail at its intended use, while creeping to the personal desires of those in charge, to the public detriment.

We’ll report more on how these lists impact torrent sites when more details become available.

UPDATE/Clarification 17:33 29/12/2012
While many commenters have pointed to this BBC piece about it being rejected, the piece was written about the rejection of an ‘opt-out’  system, and printed 4 days before Prime Minister Cameron’s Daily Mail announcement. In his plan, the system will be opt-in, and involve the ISPs in some form, but will have the default values (for people that just click through without reading) to turn on a basic level of filtering, if there are children in the house.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • BritneyBitch!

    First!

  • EDBALLS

    Fuck off cameron you new fox hunting new world order wanna-be, when are the citizens of the UK going to make their voice heard?
    Trouble is, our nations being fed on Jeremy Kyle and X-factor style crap which is lowering our nations IQ and people generally, are too busy making welfare claims for the children they cant afford to rear to care about their freedoms anymore

    • guess who

      on a side note, when thatcher dies (80+ years to fucking late), i hope someone puts a stake through her heart to make sure she is dead once and for all. whoever came up with holding a state funeral for her, is quite simpley, a tory slurping fanboi and arsehole.

      • Everyone hates a tory

        My fave comment I saw about Thatcher on a forum a year or two ago: “I wish she’d hurry up and die, I’m busting for a piss!”

        • guess who

          i _DO_ like that comment. the only thing she ever did i liked was spank the argies over the falklands. beyond that… she was evil incarnate.

      • Hogspace

        Who the fuck are you, Arthur Scargil?

        • guess who

          so you’re one of the tory fanboi slurpers. nice to see one brave enough to put you hand up and be counted. what’s it like to be one of the 1% who put the world into recesion?

        • Hogspace

          I’d be a Libertarian y’see. None of that mainstream. Nor have I experienced any recession.

        • Rezident_User

          guess who:

          As if the money you suck up on the dole constitutes an economic contribution, leech.

        • Hogspace

          Awwww have we been spoiling your party? That makes us feel good.

      • Zzzzz

        £5 million for Thatchers state funeral.
        For that you could buy a million spades and we’d happily dig her a hole straight to hell.

        • guess who

          soylent green the bitch.

        • Jimmy671

          @guess who

          soylent green Thatcher,shit,no thank’s mate.

    • Gugugg

      I’m positive I read news recently saying that this David Cameron censorship was cancelled (they aren’t going through with it anymore)…. so I’m not sure why TorrentFreak is posting news on it when it’s no longer a threat? :S

      • http://twitter.com/spude30 kg

        im in uk and this is true

        • Guest

          Indeed, it is no longer a thread. Doesn’t stop the newspapers from spreading false news tho.

        • guess who

          i was bemused it was here. i saw it on the bbc 1 news saing it wouldn’t happen. i guess even tf likes some sensationalist news. who’re we to burst their bubble?

      • Gondolo

        it’s still an interesting story though

        • Fantastic

          While it may have failed this time it pays to bring these matters to peoples attention regardless so they recognize the scheme when it pops up wearing another skin (which they always do)

    • Everyone hates a tory

      “when are the citizens of the UK going to make their voice heard?”

      They did at the last general election. The Tories didn’t win. They weren’t elected, they were ‘invited to form a government’ by the Queen when the LibDems rolled over and spread their cheeks to form a coalition.

      They’ve never had a public mandate – the got only just over a third of the votes cast. The people quite clearly voted for a hung parliament, what they got was the worst of all possible outcomes – a Tory government with tacit support from another party who abandoned the core principles of their party members just to get some ministerial positions without any executive power.

      One thing you can never do is to trust a Tory with the economy. They’re rich people who’ve never even had to budget personally, so how the hell can they budget nationally?

      • Anonymous

        Wasn’t good enough. The British public should have gone for a 3rd party rather than Huey, Dewey and Louie. aka Labour Tory and Libdem.

        • MegaAssBlaster

          … if those 3 are Huey, Dewey and Louie than who’s Uncle Scrooge?

        • Guest

          … if those 3 are Huey, Dewey and Louie than who’s Uncle Scrooge?

          Probably the BNP party.

        • Hogspace

          But they didn’t and the coalition represent rather a lot of voters. That’s called parliamentary democracy. It’s very British.
          I’d rate the current crop as better than the last three governments. Not that it’s saying a lot.

        • Guest

          … if those 3 are Huey, Dewey and Louie than who’s Uncle Scrooge?

          Probably the BNP party.

          I got confused between Ebenezer Scrooge and Uncle Scrooge.

          In that case, then I’d say Uncle Scrooge was Rupert Murdoch and co.

        • BJonesTF

          LibDem WAS the 3rd party… (created in 1988)

        • Anonymous

          @BJonesTF When I say 3rd party, I don’t mean vote for THE 3rd party. I mean vote for someone who is outside of the majority, which to my knowledge is still called a ’3rd party’.

      • Hogspace

        “Everyone hates a Tory”? This is a torrenting news site not the fucking gruniad, you freak. Who do you think is more likely to shut down internet fredom, a freer trade party like the Conservatives or a Copytheft cum felching party like Labour? Given how far up the arse of the big grossing music stars we know exactly what the answer is.
        FFS what age were you when Thatcher was in government.

        • guess who

          both. the torys are capitalist cunts, (new)labour are (wannabe)tory lite. labour stopped being the labour party a long time ago. labour was the working mans party, kier hardy &c. do those new labour nacny boys look like they’ve ever worked a day in thier life?

        • Hogspace

          The working man’s party? It was a communist offshoot. Traitors to the core. I’m a working man, they offered nothing but chaos and pain.

        • http://twitter.com/DuckTheNWO ? NewWorldStoner ?

          Considering the politicians from both parties are owned through donations from multi-national corporations, oil tycoons and various other elite scumfucks, I’d say internet freedom is not on the agenda of any of these political parties.

        • Hogspace

          It’s a worry, for sure. I hope it turns out differently

        • Goriija

          True, totalitarian communism is bad, but you are aware that Labour is funded by the Unions, who in turn represent workers across the country?

          A lot of people believe that when the bosses do well, the workers do well – there is some truth in this, but it’s not always the case, and the Tories’ strategy involves widening the gap between the two.

          Working men and women HAVE to capitalise their labour or else we down here will continue to be royally fucked by those toffee-nosed dick-heads.

          Labour has swung right, Tony Blair was addicted to free-market principles. Stuff like he gave parents “choice” for schools… so naturally the house prices around good schools sky-rocketed and suddenly it was full of little Taquins – what they presided over in those years was a Thatcherite wet dream. These parties suck up to the entrenched powers, they love stability of an organised system. You down here, him at the BPI up there. The world works, the rich get richer.

          The Lib Dems were a last great hope here and their cautious lefty pragmatism was at times genius, and exactly what we needed.

          Then they got into bed with the toffee-nosed dick-head.

          Ah well…

        • Hogspace

          It seems you are buried in some kind of class war. Welcome to the 21st century where employees can become shareholders in their employer.
          As for Unions I’m a member of two and always have been a member. I stay so for the advice and legal protection. They regularly act against the interests of their members in favour of minority interest groups. Also the relationship with the Labour party is not at all simple.

      • MadAsASnake

        I think Gordon Brown had already shown that pretty much anything was better than more Gordon Brown. The LibDems did offer a pact to Labour – the condition was that Gordon Brown was out… That (and anything else) was less of a mandate than what we got. Now, if you think Ed Balls (spend spend spend) would be better than an admittedly lacklustre Osbourne in a tight economic climate, then, well…

      • guess who

        they think a budget is what us plebs have to live with. they think they’re plebwranglers.

    • Samlock

      Could not agree more with every single word you have typed my friend. Well said.

    • Wdcjhwegv

      Quart of a million for a dinner with this dickhead?
      He should do what Stephen Timms done, walk around London, see the sights.
      Hey, whatever happened to Stephen Timms anyway?
      Went the way of Dr. David Kelly. Became an honest man.

    • Hogspace

      We wonder why someone would chose a posting name of one of the worst politicians in UK history and a man who deserves to be boiled in oil.

    • PenzancePeer

      Learn to look through the Thin Weave of ‘News’ This is just another sign of Cameron’s being propelled by event’s as opposed to making them. Once one adds the part Japanese Duncain Smith’s proposals in to the mix, you have the recipe for Full Blown Comedy Government :)

      As for Actually Blocking Porn, it show’s what a Prize Penis Cameron really is, that he believes it’s possible? As Bill Gates observed long ago, Porn is one of the main drivers of innovation and progress of the online world, sort of like a Microcosmic ‘Market Economy’ :)

  • cgimusic

    The IWF are scum. They are actually a registered charity. On my old ISP their technology was so shitty that everything on their investigation list got blocked even though it wasn’t meant to. The worst part is they don’t display a block page, they fake an HTTP error page. Secret internet censorship doesn’t sound like it should exist in a democratic and developed country yet Britain again demonstrates its communist side.

    ISPs really should refuse to implement the IWF blocklist because it just leads to the argument of “well it will cost you nothing to implement as you already have the technology”. In fact that argument came up a lot in the Pirate Bay blocking case.

    • Everyone hates a tory

      “yet Britain again demonstrates its communist side”

      You mean fascist side. If it were communist it would by definition be access to the internet for all as they needed it.

      • cgimusic

        Indeed you are right. I guess what I really mean is the fake communism that actually seems to happen in reality.

        • Everyone hates a tory

          Yeah, you’re right. The ideal is noble, but in principle it always gets corrupted by power-hungry fascists to make it a two-tier system :)

        • Hogspace

          Fake Communism being As It Happens out here in the real world rather than in your turgid dreams?

        • cgimusic

          @Hogspace Believe me, there is no communism in my dreams. I am a libertarian.

      • Hogspace

        You appear to be too fucking dumb to realise communism has wreaked far more havoc and death for working people than fascists have ever managed. Not that either has been much of a party.
        Communism, as per China, supplies access to the internet for all as they are deemed by the Party to need it.

        • bfg666

          You appear to be too fucking dumb to realise communism has never existed and is still waiting to happen. Read Marx and tell me again that China is a communist country.

        • Hogspace

          Communism is what it is out here in the real world. The turgid dreams in your head can’t actually happen in a real world system with living breathing people. That’s why trying has exterminated over 100million people. You dumb fuck.

        • BarakaX

          Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it’s the other way around.

          ;)

          After Mao’s CCP managed to kill more people in peacetime than wartime (approximately 30 million during the Great Leap Forward, alone), the tens of millions brutally murdered under Stalin’s well-constructed and oh-so-humane gulag system, the Khmer Rouge torturing and killing off a quarter of Cambodia’s people in their dream for an egalitarian society, and the fascist regimes of NAZI Germany and Italy combining to prosecute a world war that killed about 50 million people, when the fuck are people gonna learn that central planning DOES NOT WORK?!?!?

          Oh yeah, I forgot- Stalin and Mao’s brand of government wasn’t REALLY communism. *shoots self in head*

        • Hogspace

          The only sane form of government is Libertarian government. I’m an individual not a worker ant buried away as “part of society”.

      • BarakaX

        Fantastic idea! I can envision a perfect world under communism. A world where everyone has internet and phone service. A world where government chooses everyone’s cell phone and internet services. A world where each and every service provider is completely controlled by government. I can’t wait!!

  • Guest
  • Guest

    From recent reports, there are more pedos in Parliament that on the internet.
    Time to ban Parliament, me thinks.

    • retaliate

      Time to burn Parliament.

      The UK has a government that nobody voted for.

      • guess who

        i’m thinking i’ve seen this story before. v for vendetta. (goes hunting for guy fawkes mask)

      • Anonymous

        I wonder how the timeline of the UK would’ve changed if Guy had succeeded in his master plan.

        • Alt

          Worse probably, Guy wanted to install a Catholic monarchy and government who could answer to the Pope.

        • guess who

          we’d have been a catholic country for starters.

      • MadAsASnake

        Better than the previous government – Blair having is own private love in with Bush the Moron, Brown, unelected, proving that he had none of the economic nouse that he prided himself on and Mandelson shoving through the hateful DEA from a yacht in the Caribbean.

  • http://mark.goodge.co.uk/ Mark

    The PM hasn’t actually announced a new porn filter which will go online sometime next year. He’s actually announced that Windows 8 prompts you to set up parental controls by on any new account intended to be used by children! It’s just a piece of political theatre; there is no change at all to the UK government’s existing policy of not imposing mandatory porn filtering.

    http://mark.goodge.co.uk/2012/12/prime-minister-promises-porn-block/

    • Liam JH

      Thanks for the clarification and link Mark,

      SPIN SPIN SPIN

    • dondilly

      Yeah, i just read the daily mail article. The give away is ‘when you firstswitch on a new computer’. This has nothing to do with ISP blocks but a deal with microsoft to include some form on netnanny on future uk windows distros.

    • BJonesTF

      From understandings with talking to the PM’s office, Mark isn’t quite right, but is making an assumption based on one sentence (“…when people switch on their new computer…”, and then ignoring another that contradicts him (“Internet providers will also be required to verify the age of the person setting the controls.”)

      While it could be an implication that it’s win8 controls, that wouldn’t work for those that buy Apple stuff, or the increasing shift to tablets. That’s why the assumption that it’s ISP based and not on the OS is the one we’ve made. Remember, Cameron is of the generation that talks of ‘downloading pages onto the browser’, so getting terms wrong isn’t that hard to consider.

      And tablets are the issue now, because just amongst the TF staff with children, most of them have tablets now, and don’t use windows much.

    • Hogspace

      Thank fuck somebody stated it correctly. It’s a perfectly reasonable initiative that all new consumer PC’s come with parental filtering software installed which the user then configures as appropriate.
      It’s a perfectly libertarian response and a commendable piece of politics. Doesn’t impinge on the rights and freedoms of anyone.

      • BJonesTF

        except the assumption is not true.

      • Anyone

        there should be no default censorship

        if parents want to cripple their children’s internet connections they already have programs that do that

        • Nyui678ntyunytu

          Exactly.
          Informing parents is the only way to do it.

          Let their kids online with webcams …….. block porn to protect their kids
          Fucking retarded.
          Chris Hanson wont be retiring anytime soon

  • Guest

    Last week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced a new porn filtering system that will go online sometime during the coming year. However, the blockades, which are intended to deal with porn, may end up developing into a backdoor ban on BitTorrent and other file-sharing related sites.

    The same was said about the IWF child protection filter and that has been in operation since approx 1995

    • oh you

      interdesting.

      People were saying that*
      Before bittorrent and “mainstream” p2p filesharing sites were invented.

      interdesting indeed.

    • Guest

      you seem to be Italic
      but you are so bold!

    • Goriija

      The IWF filter, while flawed and pointless has the noble purpose of censoring ILLEGAL material.

      This new Daily Mail filter has the stated aim of preventing access to LEGAL material. Possibly offensive, but material that we have protected rights to ogle whenever we see fit.

  • IWFSUXDIX

    Try to spell VPN.

    Vpndirect [dot] com …they even got an iphone app out that i use frequently when i axx my Facebook in China!

  • Kevin Grech

    V for Vendetta!

    • Anyone

      VPN for Vendetta!

      • guess who

        that is one of the best posts i’ve read for a while. that should be a new meme for england and our right to a free internet..

        • Guest

          what are you? an attention whore

  • http://twitter.com/The_Thnikkaman The_Thnikkaman

    Story is backwards, actually last week they backed down from putting on a filter because the public didn’t want it. Now they just want ISPs to give people the option of if they want to filter or not

    Here’s the true story

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746

    • BJonesTF

      written December 15. Daily mail piece.. December 19.
      The BBC piece is about the end of ‘opt-out’ while cameron is talking about ‘opt-in’ albeit with the defaults set to ‘on’ (so that speed-clicking as you would an EULA turns it on to it’s basic settings)

  • Wmwhotuf

    It is my understanding that this block is not to be implemented. Do not take this to mean that I support such a block, I really do not, but my hope is that the BBC has been accurate in reporting this.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746

  • sagsamsig

    Oh wow, thats like the most absurd thing I have ever heard of. Seriosuly?
    http://www.Anon-its.tk

    • chris p bacon

      stupid site, oh really to you pal

  • 1hhh1

    [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/152/35907348.jpg/][IMG]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/439/35907348.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

    • ScrewEwe2

      The High is Nigh for this guy. What can I say, when I got some, I smoke some, and when I run out, I tend to pout, so I try to stay stocked up, without a doubt.

  • UraPhake

    “Think of the children!”

    • guess who

      sadly, the kiddie diddlers do.

      • ScrewEwe2

        Shhhhhhhhhh, you’re going to awaken the chronoss monster.

  • Guest

    Hey, David Cameron?

    Censorship is immoral.

    So you can take your so-called “morality campaign” and shove it vigorously up your ass.

    • Hogspace

      It isn’t censorship you dumb fuck, it’s entirely the reverse. Parental configurable software to enable child protection, leaving the internet exactly as it was.

      • ghost

        “enable child protection”

        So it will block facebook, all cam sites, all picture uploading sites etc……
        Lots of parents think those sites are safe. They won’t be blocked.

        Enable false sense of security.

  • Zenamez

    Even if this does go ahead, we still have proxies and VPNs to get around it. I’m just waiting for the ignorant arseholes we call a government to make the use of proxies and VPNs illegal.

    • Anonymous

      I thought the filter was opt in/out. Whichever way it is, if they affect uTorrent the slightest, what makes you think you can’t opt out?

      Oh I see, they still block torrent sites when you opt out of the porn filter? I wouldn’t put it past them!

  • Iampirate

    There is no new porn block. It’s just a windows 8 thing

  • Anonymous

    with Cameron doing what he wants and not what his own ministers or the majority of the people he is supposed to be representing being completely ignored, it just shows the sort of megalomaniac is in charge of the UK. funny how he has been so quick to jump on something like this but totally ignores the pleas from millions of people to update the copyright laws or try to get the entertainment industries to update their business models. what is supposedly coming into law next year is only half a law. what the hell is the point, like in the USA, of making it legal to backup legally purchased disks but still leaving it illegal to remove or bypass the protection on those disks? to get ‘special permission’ in some way or other from the SoS will take forever and i bet mean that anyone that asks to do this will be taken to ‘a secure place’ and questioned until he pleads guilty to committing terrorism! all over a plastic disk that people should never have been stopped from copying for themselves in the first place!!

  • Guest

    not sure if all the facts are correct in this article. last week the block was rejected in the uk.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746

  • Whatever

    So now we know why this Ben Dover trying so hard to get his latest extortion scam legalized.

    The only place remaining for people to find their “imaginary property” (this can be read in so many ways here) after the ban will only be through filesharing.

    • Hogspace

      When Ben Dover needs is the arse fucking he likes to see dished out to some sad porn cow.
      I’ll buy that for a dollar.

  • Pingback: In the News.. | TorGuard.net Blog - Anonymous VPN Services

  • chris p bacon

    so i searched for a Kate Bush download mp3 320 kbps and got this
    Download Kate Bush – Kashka from Baghdad for bagpipes from …
    http://www.nuttymp3.com/download/bagpipes-from-baghdad…/2Come and download Kate Bush – Kashka from Baghdadabsolutely for free and all songs for bagpipes from baghdad instrumental. Fast downloads.
    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 4 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

    my point is. what the fucking hell is going on?. will all results be pages and pages of gobshite like this, it is wasting my dongles allowance every time i use the search for a legitimate free download of a song i like,for fucks sake.i am not going ask for you to excuse my language because i meant it

    • Whatever

      It is a strategy to turn Google from a search engine into the mess the internet itself is. Although at this point the internet looks already much more organized than Google.

      It also seems that the MAFIAA sends huge amounts of URL’s in single DCMA notices to prevent you to find the result that was DMCA’ed at ChillingEffects.org. Found that out trying to check why a open source related search request would create a DMCA result. As automated system have no trouble sending each DMCA seperate there is no need to bundle them to save on stamps.

      Is the bundling of DMCA notices allowed by the (US) DMCA law ? Does 1 out of 2 false notifications mean “collateral damage”, “half perjury” or is it full perjury for every false link in the notice anyhow ? Only the US knows.

    • Who

      yep this is a result of copyright abuse by sony records.

      • Guest

        fuck sony

        • chris p bacon

          yep, agreed. anyone want to buy my cybershot?

  • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

    “Many torrent sites contain, to a greater or lesser extent, pornographic content, as well as more acceptable (but likely still to be blocked) ‘adult’ or ‘mature’ content. As such, we can only assume that torrent sites will be included initially or added later on.”

    This is very easy to solve, a few solutions:
    - Moderation needed of bittorrent sites to remove pornographic contents or contents infringing copyright.
    - Split up the torrent page on separate domains, e.g. The Porno Bay etc, and then some moderation to ensure that the right domain is used. TPB can even use a separate domain for non copyrighted files. A blocking of one domain then wouldn’t affect the others.

    Very simple solutions, just like if a drug-dealer also selling bibles in the same store may understand that using two separate stores would provide isolation between the two businesses, if the drug-dealing store is busted, the bible store is not affected.

    As a customer it would also be welcome to have this isolation. If I want to use a Cyberlocker, I definitely wouldn’t use one involved in piracy since it may be busted at any time, possibly making my files inaccessible. It would be really stupid of me to take that risk.

    • Guest

      Never use a map, since a criminal may use the map to find out where to commit crimes and you are guilty by association.

      Never drive along a road, since that road may be used to travel to where a crime may be committed and you are guilty by association.

      Never live, since criminals live and you are guilty by association.

      • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

        You obviously don’t know much about law. This is not a matter of black or white, the level of conspiracy/accessory to crime must be very strong to get convicted, your examples are so far fetched that and with extremely low level of conspiracy/accessory to crime, a lawyer would find your examples ridiculous.

        • Fredrika

          > “You obviously don’t know much about law.”

          Coming from the person who just argued that there is copyrighted contents on torrent sites, despite the fact that everyone else knows that there aren’t.

        • Guest

          You obviously don’t know much about law.”

          And neither do you know much about the law Nej!!!!!

          There is NO law that says a Bittorrent site cannot have porn on it or link to porn and until it does your opinion is not the law and will never be a replacement of the law.

          And furthermore the porn filter has been cancelled for now in the UK and may never be implemented at all.

        • Guest

          “your examples are so far fetched that and with extremely low level of conspiracy/accessory to crime, a lawyer would find your examples ridiculous.”

          And a lawyer will never be able to stop laughing at the ridiculous examples and arguments that you post on this website Nej either!!!!

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Guest

          “And a lawyer will never be able to stop laughing at the ridiculous examples and arguments that you post on this website Nej either!!!!”

          You mean like the lawyers involved in the TPB case? The sentences must have been one of the most obvious and clear sentences ever, convicting them for accessory to copyright infringement.

          Any internet user understands what happens when you:
          1. Go to the TPB
          2. Search for The Pirates of the Caribbean, a copyrighted movie, no doubts
          3. Click on “Get this torrent”
          4. The bittorrent client starts downloading after a while
          5. You have the copyrighted movie on your hard disk

          Compare the level of accessory with your examples of using a map etc. Ridiculous comparison.

        • Guest

          @Anon Who said anything about TPB I didn’t so it is not relevant. Furthermore the porn filter has been cancelled so what you going to do now further troll on this website for the need of a porn filter!!!!

          Furthermore I did not make the comment regarding a road map. Your frustration in responding clearly shows how desperate you are in trying to argue back but makes you come across as a child in trying to get out of trouble when they have done something what.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Guest

          I’m not “Anon”

        • Guest

          “The sentences must have been one of the most obvious and clear sentences ever, convicting them for accessory to copyright infringement.”

          You mean biased sentences from a biased judge who had connections/associations with the copyright industry and will favour the copyright industry even that TPB was clearly right and innocent. You still don’t understand do you!!!!

        • Guest

          @Nej Who said anything about TPB I didn’t so it is not relevant. Furthermore the porn filter has been cancelled so what you going to do now further troll on this website for the need of a porn filter!!!!

          Furthermore I did not make the comment regarding a road map. Your frustration in responding clearly shows how desperate you are in trying to argue back but makes you come across as a child in trying to get out of trouble when they have done something wrong.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Guest

          “You mean biased sentences from a biased judge who had connections/associations with the copyright industry and will favour the copyright industry even that TPB was clearly right and innocent. You still don’t understand do you!!!!”

          No, the court convicted for crimes committed, according to the Swedish law.

          The fact that TPB is blocked in an increasing number of countries confirms the correctness of those sentences.

        • Whatever

          @Nejtillpirater
          You are contradicting your earlier comments. As all other far fetched evidence that comes with the identification of infringing you have always stated those as black and white. Like that account holders should be responsible for ANY crime on the internet.

          Why haven’t you reported yourself at the nearest police station yet ?

          Don’t tell me, i already know…

          You just keep repeating the same things over and over again beyond boring on whatever someone else started as a subject. Never any (technical) insight, observation or an opinion beyond your “copy=theft” message. You should really “copy” some more internet resources to expand your AI functions.

          So, i just need to ask you one question: Who made you ?

        • Guest

          @Nej “No, the court convicted for crimes committed, according to the Swedish law.

          The fact that TPB is blocked in an increasing number of countries confirms the correctness of those sentences.”

          As I said the sentences were biased by a biased judge who had connections/associations with the copyright industry and will favour the copyright industry even that TPB was innocent. No matter what the sentence was it was still a biased sentence by a biased judge etc. If that is Swedish law to have a biased judge residing the case then that is unjustice!!!

          As for blocking TPB that too is illegal. The European Court of Human Rights has now reinforced access to online content and that blocking access to a whole site is illegal and these blocks will have to be overturned should those european countries where the block is in place take the matter up the European Court of Human Rights.

          European Court Of Human Rights Reinforces Right To Access Online Content
          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121220/08515021451/european-court-human-rights-reinforces-right-to-access-online-content.shtml

          “In its judgment, the ECHR noted that the regulator had not attempted to contact Google to seek the closure of the offending site, and that the 2007 law that allowed the regulator to close down foreign-hosted sites did not permit blocking an entire domain such as Google Sites.”

          In otherwords according to the 2007 law you cannot block an entire domain. So blocking access to TPB is blocking the whole of their domain and that breaches the 2007 law.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Whatever

          “You are contradicting your earlier comments. As all other far fetched evidence that comes with the identification of infringing you have always stated those as black and white. Like that account holders should be responsible for ANY crime on the internet.”

          I wrote “Both IPSs, VPN services and ISP account owners must be more accountable, taking responsibility for any crimes committed on the Internet.”

          It’s rather obvious that I was referring to crimes committed using a certain ISP account, making that particular owner accountable, not for other crimes committed using other accounts.

          “So, i just need to ask you one question: Who made you ?”

          Made? I’m just a private person interested in the topics being discussed.
          Do you ask the same question to all users here?

        • Guest

          @Nej “I wrote “Both IPSs, VPN services and ISP account owners must be more accountable, taking responsibility for any crimes committed on the Internet.”"

          There is NO law that says an ISP and VPN are responsible for the actions of the account user and the ISP and VPN can not be held accountable either for the crimes of people on the internet.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Guest

          “As for blocking TPB that too is illegal. The European Court of Human Rights has now reinforced access to online content and that blocking access to a whole site is illegal and these blocks will have to be overturned should those european countries where the block is in place take the matter up the European Court of Human Rights.

          European Court Of Human Rights Reinforces Right To Access Online Content
          http://www.techdirt.com/articl

          “In its judgment, the ECHR noted that the regulator had not attempted to contact Google to seek the closure of the offending site, and that the 2007 law that allowed the regulator to close down foreign-hosted sites did not permit blocking an entire domain such as Google Sites.”

          In otherwords according to the 2007 law you cannot block an entire domain. So blocking access to TPB is blocking the whole of their domain and that breaches the 2007 law. ”

          The case you’re referring to was about blocking of a domain leading to multiple web sites, where blocking was required for one of the sites only. This is obviously not the case for TPB, it’s not a web hotel with multiple sites. You’re taking the ECHR decision way to far and out of context.

        • Guest

          @Nej “The case you’re referring to was about blocking of a domain leading to multiple web sites, where blocking was required for one of the sites only. This is obviously not the case for TPB, it’s not a web hotel with multiple sites. Your taking the ECHR decision way to far and out of context.”

          You are incorrect in what you say and yet again you have shown yourself to be wrong in arguing back. At least get your facts write when discussing law!!!!

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Guest

          “You are incorrect in what you say and yet again you have shown yourself to be wrong in arguing back. At least get your facts write when discussing law!!!!”

          So what was incorrect in what I wrote? Please be more specific. I followed your link and read the information.

          “The case you’re referring to was about blocking of a domain leading to multiple web sites, where blocking was required for one of the sites only. This is obviously not the case for TPB, it’s not a web hotel with multiple sites. You’re taking the ECHR decision way to far and out of context.”

        • Guest

          @Nej “So what was incorrect in what I wrote? Please be more specific. I followed your link and read the information.

          “The case you’re referring to was about blocking of a domain leading to multiple web sites, where blocking was required for one of the sites only. This is obviously not the case for TPB, it’s not a web hotel with multiple sites. You’re taking the ECHR decision way to far and out of context.”

          No, I am write with what I have said. I work in law and it seems you have no concept of the law. I suggest you get a lawyer to read the article if you cannot understand to what i am talking about!!!

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Guest

          “No, I am write with what I have said. I work in law and it seems you have no concept of the law. I suggest you get a lawyer to read the article if you cannot understand to what i am talking about!!!”

          You obviously haven’t read and understood the article. You cannot even state what was wrong in my simple statement!

          If you “work in law” it must be a piece of cake to explain what was incorrect in my text. Pathetic.

        • Guest

          @Nej “You obviously haven’t read and understood the article. You cannot even state what was wrong in my simple statement!

          If you “work in law” it must be a piece of cake to explain what was incorrect in my text. Pathetic.”

          I have read and understood the article, thank you. I do not have to explain what is wrong with what you say and as for saying “pathetic” well then you judge yourself the same in that manner as the others that you judge them by.

        • Whatever

          @Nejtillpirater

          “any crimes committed on the Internet.”
          You still mention “any crimes”. Any is a huge responsibility. And it proves you are in contradiction with your statement about Guest’s map analogy. You inconsistently used a scale as a reply while always replying in black and white.

          “Do you ask the same question to all users here?”
          No, just the ones stuck in a while loop (you may choose in which language).

          You always desperately try to change any topic to a yes/no discussion about legal/illegal where you try with any means (including lies) to have it your way. You never have any discussion about anything else. Seems like a bot to me or a way to spam/troll the comments (Informative, helpful and funny comments get buried).

          In a chess game with a human and a computer, if stuck into going back and forth between 2 moves the human is the one that will in the end try a different move. The computer will never try because nobody programmed it to do so.

          I leave the rest of you to Fredrika. She (assuming she) is the best at disproving every point you ever try to make.

        • Bob_Geldof

          @ Guest. “No, I am write with what I have said. I work in law…..”.

          Priceless.

          Someone who works “in law” who cannot differentiate between “write” and “right”.

        • Guest

          @Bob_Geldof “Someone who works “in law” who cannot differentiate between “write” and “right”.”

          There are those in governments who have made worse mistakes and still keep their jobs. Now that is priceless.

        • Who

          “level of conspiracy/accessory to crime must be very strong to get convicted”

          O really? not according to what YOU have said in other comments.

        • Who

          ya know you really need to just give it a rest cause its obvious that you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.

        • MadAsASnake

          You obviously know nothing about the law, except how to misrepresent it

        • icec0ld

          Assessment of the understanding of law coming from Nej?

          A guy who is clearly grasping at straws, insists you haven’t read the article if you disagree with him.

          A guy who insists you are guilty by association if you’re even present on the net.

          A guy who will lie about existing laws to support his perverted view of justice.

          A guy who clearly has no fucking clue what he is talking about.

        • Jimmy671

          Hello my pointy headed little Troll,I hope you had a happy Christmas.
          Now look out,Fredrika is coming to bury you in a deluge of words.

    • Fredrika

      > “Moderation needed of bittorrent sites to remove..//..contents infringing copyright.”

      Maybe you should read up on copyright a bit? There is no contents infringing copyright on torrent sites. There is only non-copyrighted non-infringing torrent files.

      > “TPB can even use a separate domain for non copyrighted files.”

      All files on Pirate Bay already are non-copyrighted.

      > “Very simple solutions, just like if a drug-dealer also selling bibles in the same store may understand that using two separate stores would provide isolation between the two businesses, if the drug-dealing store is busted, the bible store is not affected.”

      Do you know what guilt by association is? If not, educate yourself, and then stay away from it.

      > “If I want to use a Cyberloocker, a definitely wouldn’t use one involved in piracy..”

      There are no cyberlockers involved in piracy. There are only cyberlockers involved in hosting user uploaded content, that the cyberlockers are forbidden from inspecting.

      • Anon

        “All files on Pirate Bay already are non-copyrighted.”

        I am under the impression that TPB hosts some nonprotected works, but the vast majority of the works TPB facilitates copying are indeed, under copyright protection. What do you mean by a statement like this?

        It seems untrue just on the face of it.

        • Fredrika

          > “I am under the impression that TPB hosts some nonprotected works..”

          How little you know of copyright law. All works are copyrighted. Whether or not the current copyright holder permits or opposes free filesharing of the work does not change that the work is copyrighted.

          Had you had only the most basic fundamental knowledge of how copyright works, you would have known this indisputable fact.

          > “..but the vast majority of the works TPB facilitates copying..”

          Pirate Bay does no facilitates copying of any works. They offer indexing of non-copyrighted torrent files, that in no way give any directions to where any copyrighted works can be found.

          What Pirate Bay offers does not equal facilitating copying according to any relevant judicial system on this planet.

          > “What do you mean by a statement like this?”

          I meant exactly what i wrote, the problem seems to lie in your end, and that you couldn’t actually read it properly, or that you don’t understand how copyright works?

          > “It seems untrue just on the face of it.”

          To someone as ignorant as you, possibly.

        • BJonesTF

          It’s quite simple. “Avatar” (as an example) is a copyrighted movie.
          TPB does not host Avatar.
          TPB has on it’s servers a metadata file, which is a series of checksums for a particular file. It is a simple description on a file (and one that by itself can not recreate the data)

          As such it is a non-creative work (‘facts are not copyrightable) as it is purely a lossy mathematical descriptor of a film. It is not the film itself.

          This is also why TPB has never been accused of infringing copyright, or attempting to infringe, but always ‘conspiracy to infringe’, or ‘facilitating infringement’

          However, it’s impossible to end up with avatar the movie, if all you EVER download is avatar.torrent (or even more impossible, the magnet for that torrent)

        • Anon

          @BJonesTF
          Yes, thanks, I understand all that. Everyone knows TPB hosts no files. But my reference was in recognition that multiple court cases have led to convictions for encouragement and facilitation, and the files TPB point to are indeed, by and largely copyrighted works. So you are simply splitting hairs.

          Without the works there’d be no draw, without the draw there’d be no traffic, without the traffic there’d be no revenue from advertising. It’s a house of semantic cards. It’s like a landlord collecting rent on a crack house. It’s quite naturally unlawful to any reasonable person and splitting hair type arguments (But he’s only collecting RENT!) the pirates keep referring to increasingly are not persuasive in courts of law. We’ve heard these circular arguments for years and they are increasingly debunked.

          So it’s the same blah blah pirates routinely fall for, like constantly reminding anyone who will listen ad nauseum that copying isn’t “theft” because it takes a copy but leaves the original. It’s pointless and eventually boring, a weak attempt at justification to make an unlawful copy without paying the purchase price. At this point just tell it to the judge, y’know? People who have been on the scene for a long time are over hearing this kind of pointless crap.

          So while your technical distinctions are correct, it’s just so much empty blather to justify disrespectful/unlawful behavior. I don’t mind putting up with this crap here, it’s fun watching pirates contort themselves into ethical and moral knots to try to get something valuable for nothing. But it’s also a pleasure to see that the Swedish court system wasn’t and still isn’t buying any of it.

        • BJonesTF

          Legal systems are all about splitting hairs.
          The fact is, contrary to your assertions, TPB does not infringe copyright. You are attempting to conflate different things, and equate them to be the same thing.

          Intellectual honesty begins at home.
          And as for copyright infringement not being theft, the LAW says it’s not, even the lobby groups now admit it’s not. Reason is, because it IS NOT. No matter how many times you claim it is, or it’s like it, it’s not and never has been.

          You just make yourself look stupid by claiming things that EVERYONE has definitively said is not true, except in some very biased and factually inaccurate adverts (which if you’d forgotten, are not required to be factual)

        • Fredrika

          > “But my reference was in recognition that multiple court cases have led to convictions for encouragement and facilitation..”

          And? Twice as many has led to acquittals? What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.

          > “..and the files TPB point to..”

          Pirate Bay does not point to any files? Maybe you should read up on the technical facts before commenting any further?

          > “..are indeed, by and largely copyrighted works.”

          That people have a legal right to fileshare in many countries around the globe.

          > “So you are simply splitting hairs.”

          Keeping it factual you mean?

          > “Without the works there’d be no draw..”

          Without the torrents you mean, which aren’t works. Or do you mean as with IMDb, that without the works there would be no draw?

          > “..without the draw there’d be no traffic, without the traffic there’d be no revenue from advertising.”

          Maybe you should study the history of Pirate Bay. The reason they were forced to start using ads was because of the costly traffic.

          But then again, getting revenues from ads is fully legal in both Pirate Bay’s case and IMDb’s.

          > “It’s a house of semantic cards.”

          Regarding a fully legal site.

          > “It’s pointless and eventually boring..”

          Dishonest people trying to project the negative value of theft on infringements, yes, that is boring and pointless. Why do you do it?

          > “..a weak attempt at justification to make an unlawful copy..”

          You seem confused, not understanding how society and law works, and in what directions justification is required. Ownership of the computer justifies use of it. Pirates need no more justification.

          What should be justified is the copyright monopoly, and as you are fully aware of, society has no proven need for it, so the only justification that was required failed.

          > “..without paying the purchase price.”

          When you don’t purchase anything, there’s nothing to pay. Not buying anything is what justifies not having to pay.

          > “So while your technical distinctions are correct..”

          Not only technical, legal as well.

          > “..it’s just so much empty blather to justify disrespectful/unlawful behavior.”

          No, that’s what it isn’t.

          Secondly, most sane people don’t feel disobeying an unjust monopoly that society has no proven need for to be disrespectful.

          What would be disrespectful would be to demand a legislative monopoly despite the fact that society has no proven need for it. And the party that displays that disrespectful freetard mentality are the weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market, you know those freetards that you defend.

          > “I don’t mind putting up with this crap here..”

          Facts are crap in your book? Well, what should one expect from someone who doesn’t understand the facts.

          > “..it’s fun watching pirates contort themselves into ethical and moral knots to try to get something valuable for nothing.”

          It has nothing to do with ethics or moral. Having a sane economical mind is what tells people that paying for something that holds no economical value is wrong, stupid and completely insane.

          The price for manufacturing something however is free, regardless of what subjective moral anyone has. The price is not affected by moral or ethics.

          > “But it’s also a pleasure to see that the Swedish court system wasn’t and still isn’t buying any of it.”

          You are aware of the fact that many many unmoderated torrent sites already have been fully acquitted in other countries? Sweden is in fact the only country where operators for a torrent sites has been convicted, and all it took to manage that was an unconstitutional trial with judges that according to the Swedish and European constitution were biased.

          But we can’t let constitutions stand in the way for some weak failed fascist entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market, now can we?

        • Anyone

          @Anon
          the files TPB points to are simply .torrent files
          they are not copyrighted, they are simply information about other files

          those other files might be copyrighted, but that’s should not be the concern of TPB

          the Swedish justice system appears to be utterly corrupt, setting up a mock trial with biased judges, bribing Cambodia to abduct anakata or also their behaviour towards Assange, I’d be afraid if that is the model that is to be aspired to

          and making a copy can never be stealing
          if I make my own chair out of my own wood I bought that happens to look like one for sale at IKEA, did I steal something from IKEA? of course not, and it is exactly the same with digital files. I create my own copies of files that might happen to be the same files that are for sale elsewhere (probably not exactly the same, since the files I get over bittorrent rarely have crippling DRM), but I didn’t steal anything from anyone

        • Anon

          @BJonesTF

          Talk about intellectual honesty. lol Fine then, call me names and pretend I asserted TPB infringes when I made very clear what the convictions were actually based upon. The courts aren’t buying it. If pirates feel one of the national leading lights of social honesty and conscience is bribed and corrupt because the judge actually studied copyright prior to the case and understood many of the nuances that led to these convictions, I think you should wear that opinion proudly for all to see.

          Your mistaken belief that legal systems are about splitting hairs puts you in the same petulant camp, stomping feet and demanding that technical possibility makes infringement right, and just adds more fuel to the fire that piracy had better develop more compelling argument than this with far better leadership going forward or a censored internet will not prove that much of an outlier.

          And then pirates can take their bows for the sleazy online behavior that brought all this on in the first place. Conflate this.

        • Fredrika

          > ..call me names..”

          Well, when you are dishonest, and when you openly applaud fascism and rape, what reactions do you expect?

          > “..The courts aren’t buying it.”

          On the contrary, they are, which is why Pirate Bay can continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant judicial systems.

          > “If pirates feel one of the national leading lights of social honesty and conscience is bribed and corrupt because the judge actually studied copyright prior to the case and understood many of the nuances that led to these convictions..”

          The Swedish and European constitution says that they were biased.

          > “..and demanding that technical possibility makes infringement right..”

          Again you try to reverse the order of society. Since society has no proven need for the monopoly, the monopoly is wrong, and as such infringing on it is hardly wrong.

          > “..and just adds more fuel to the fire that piracy had better develop more compelling argument..”

          You mean those arguments that you can refute?

          > “..than this with far better leadership going forward or a censored internet will not prove that much of an outlier.”

          It’s a good thing that that a censored Internet doesn’t stop piracy on bit.

          > “And then pirates can take their bows for the sleazy online behavior that brought all this on in the first place.”

          Sleazy? Accessing copies of culture for free on a commercial scale has been the norm in society for over a 150 years. No sane or honest person would call that sleazy.

          What would be sleazy however would to try to manipulate governments and the judicial system to keep a monopoly that society has no proven need for.

          Now remind me, which party is it that display such sleaziness? Wouldn’t that be the weak failed fascist entrepreneurs that you defend?

        • Anyone

          @Anon
          what is sleazy about free culture for all?
          are you also against libraries?

        • Badboyboatclub

          @ Fredrika. “What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.”

          You seem confused.

          Perhaps you are unaware of a country called the UK? Earlier this year a Judge from the UK (Mr Justice Arnold) ruled…

          “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.

          Conclusion

          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.”

          Please stop lying about things you know nothing about. Educate yourself about things if you wish to speak about them.

          http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html&query=pirate+and+bay&method=boolean

        • Fredrika

          > “You seem confused.”

          Rest assured, there’s no confusion in my end, there is however ignorance in your end.

          > “Perhaps you are unaware of a country called the UK? Earlier this year a Judge from the UK (Mr Justice Arnold) ruled…”

          I’m fully aware of his ruling, which was regarding an —> injunction <—. Now, had you not been so ignorant regarding how the judicial systems actually works, you would have known that an injunction does not decide what’s illegal, nor does the words a judge decides to utter in relation to an injunction. Precedent sentences handed down according to penal law, decides what’s generally illegal, nothing else does.

          Do you understand, or do i need to clarify it even further?

          > “Please stop lying about things you know nothing about.”

          Well, having more knowledge of how the judicial system actually works than what you do doesn’t make one a lyer.

          > “Educate yourself about things if you wish to speak about them.”

          Might i suggest the same in return, since as we have now discovered, the one displaying a rather huge amount of ignorance was you? Since you didn’t even know what an injunction is, you seem to need it desperately.

        • Guest

          answer me this: how do you download a modern linux distributive (Ubuntu or whatever) for home, for server – doesn’t matter.. so how do you do it in the most convenient way

          1 word: bit torrent

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Guest

          “answer me this: how do you download a modern linux distributive (Ubuntu or whatever) for home, for server – doesn’t matter.. so how do you do it in the most convenient way

          1 word: bit torrent”

          So what? Bit torrent technology is not illegal, no technology is legal.

          Download of open source software is of course perfectly legal, no matter what technology you’re using. Piracy is however piracy no matter what technology you’re using, existing or future. It’s always the actions that are illegal not the methods and tools used.

        • Fredrika

          > “Download of open source software is of course perfectly legal, no matter what technology you’re using. Piracy is however piracy no matter what technology you’re using, existing or future. It’s always the actions that are illegal not the methods and tools used.”

          So what you are saying is that for all those hundreds of millions of people that live in countries where the copyright monopoly don’t regulate non-profit use, it’s fully legal to download and upload the latest copyrighted Hollywood movie using torrents?

          And are you also saying that it’s also fully legal to operate unmoderated torrent sites in all those countries around the world where it’s isn’t illegal to do so?

          And are you also saying that it’s fully legal to operate unmoderated torrent sites with a tracker in for instance Sweden, if your intent only is to help those hundreds of millions of people that have a legal right to fileshare copyrighted works?

          Am i understanding you correctly?

          But if a technology can be used for both legal and unlawful use, such as blank cassette tapes, double cassette decks, CD-burners and torrents, is it then legal or illegal to offer that technology?

        • Whatever

          @Nej….
          “Download of open source software is of course perfectly legal, NO MATTER WHAT technology you’re using.”

          Contradicting yourself again i see.
          “Open source” does not equal “free to distribute/free to copy”

          So you are advocating that if source code is provided in a sale it is free to be distributed ? No “imaginary property” protection for those that let you look at the source ? Even Microsoft gives (gave) some of its source to a selective few. Are they free to distibute it now ? But the law says otherwise and you are now in very big trouble.

          You are from this moment, by your own definition, guilty of copyright infringement because you posted on the internet for others to break the law.

          Applying your “taking responsibility for all internet crimes” theory, anyone can from this moment name you as an accomplice. You cannot say you didn’t mean it that way.

          The MAFIAA already interfered with computer magazines publishing ways how to use torrents, newsgroups or any other download methods. In all those articles the magazines add a section about what is not allowed because of threats.

          You didn’t, so be prepared to be sued.

          @Fredrika: Too bad you missed this one.

        • Fredrika

          > “@Fredrika: Too bad you missed this one.”

          As you can see, i’ve been plenty busy with a boating enthusiast who’s had a rather hard time understanding the difference between penal law(crimes/illegal) and civil law(infringements).

          Not only does he not understand those fundamental differences regarding how the judicial system works, he also seems to have a rather hard time reading English properly. Apparently he hasn’t grasped the meaning of the word generally, and he also fails to understand words written in a judgement that he himself brought into the discussion, and in that case the words users and operators, confusing them with a site and does.

          Now he’s super convinced that he has exposed me as a lying ignorant fraud. And in the unlikely event he finally did get it after my final replay, i doubt he will ever return to apologise and admit he was wrong from beginning to end.

          http://torrentfreak.com/will-new-uk-censorship-impact-torrent-sites-121229/#comment-751879447

    • guess who

      you are so stupid, i wonder, are you connected to a machine to keep you artifialy breathing?

      Nurse, could you please unplug this tard? TIA.

  • Js

    I bet this makes Golden Eye and Ben Dover happy LMFAO

    • Guest

      If there was a porn filter in place Golden eye will be out of business as they won’t be able to send out letters threatening pay up or else letters, What a shame lol

  • Sfoxman

    Many “netizens” will be without many options with this system of censorship. And the bad guys who know how to circumvent the “techniques of censorship”, with less congestion. What a great government.

  • Who

    the problem is the people want the government to raise there kids in stead of them. LAZY FUCKS! so they scream for internet filtering so little Serra or johnny cant view porn when its there own dam fault there not controlling what they view.

  • Amused

    I think there is quite a bit of over-reaction to this. My understanding is that this will be implemented so you have to “opt-in” to have porn sites etc blocked. If you don’t “opt-in”, they won’t be blocked. It is intended that parents can prevent their children from wanking over internet porn. I personally would never do that and I would never “opt-in” to any form of internet censorship.

  • Sense

    I would say that they will use this porn filtered system with torrent sites. It’s always the same strategy. Begin small, step by step, until you reach your goal. They are begining with porn filter. An automatic system will be born and they will send watever they want to filter like the DMCA system of google­.

    • Everyone hates a tory

      Indeed they will. The biggest tell-tale sign is always when the initial argument is ‘think of the children’.

      1. Set Precedent with emotive subject
      2. Creep creep creep to expand the powers
      3. Profit!

      • Sense

        Think of the children is a cheesy argument because you can’t fight it. If someone do, then it’s look like he is a monster.

        It’s always the same, they punish 99% of the people for 1%.

        • Christopher Kidwell

          I fight it all the time and more and more people are realizing that if you have to turn to the ‘think of the children’ argument that your argument is automatically invalidated, because if your argument was valid you wouldn’t have to tug at people’s heartstrings to get them on your side.

        • Sense

          @Christopher Kidwell

          I agree with you. But this is what twisted politician and lobbyist do when it come to convince the mass.

          Think about all the woman in the world. Some of them are mothers. The thinking of a woman is more based by emotion. Men is more logical. That doesn’t mean that woman can’t be logical. Even if the argument ‘think of the children’ is invalid, it will touch the heartstrings of people because it presented differently with the same message.

  • Dude

    Everyone knows of proxies. Dumbasses.

    • highboi

      not the point, they are taking away freedom with censorship, we can do what ever we want as long as the gov approves? bullshit not how it works

  • noko

    No sex please, we’re British.

  • Andrew me

    This could have been much worse, at least we have the choice on whether to opt in or not, when it gets to the point where it is forced on us that is the time to revolt and to demand that Internet sites not be blocked by the government.

  • PiRat

    First voluntary, then mandatory, this will be used to crack down on anonymous distribution methods (file sharing) using porn as the excuse leading to a centralised censored internet.

    • highboi

      we were looking for child porno but found out this guy was downloading a new movie still in theaters. thats what im expecting to see

  • renob

    Not to be a douche and off topic but hot damn it’s nice to see people bitching about another country’s government other than USA.

  • Foff

    Would someone actually like to define what porn is? Right now many porn companies are claiming copyright violations which is impossible if what they are peddling is porn since porn is not protected. For copyright they claim their fuck movies are art. So will someone explain the difference between fucking for art and fucking for fun?

    Without getting to detailed for most of us 99.9% of movies and mags with nudity is plainly porn. The purpose of which is to excite and sell sex. I seriously doubt there is one person on this forum or almost anywhere that can claim they downloaded a fuck flick because they wanted to appreciate the artistic value.

    The point is we all know what porn is and can easily separate porn from art of which there is precious little but no filter can because no software has enough intelligence to separate the two. Even courts with intelligence can’t seem to either when they allow porn companies to get ip’s so they can sue for copyright infringement. I never filters on my computers and never had any problems. Filtering like virus protection is way over rated. Both of those type of softwares at least where I live have little value.

    • Guest

      “Right now many porn companies are claiming copyright violations which is impossible if what they are
      peddling is porn since porn is not protected.”

      Wrong, at least under the First Amendment pornography is protected speech unless it meets the so-called Miller test. Obscenity is not a nationwide but community standard. The Supreme Court has also held in another case that virtual child pornography is protected speech.

      “The point is we all know what porn is and can easily separate porn from art of which there is precious little but no filter can because no software has
      enough intelligence to separate the two. Even courts with intelligence can’t seem to either when they allow porn companies to get ip’s so they can sue
      for copyright infringement.”

      Wrong again, copyright infringement is separate from the obscenity laws. What are you a retarded fascist? The government has no business policing even commercial pornography between consenting adults. Obscenity laws are censorship plain and simple, and even copyright trolling does not justify government censorship of sexually explicit speech.

      I wished more people would not defend obscenity laws or antipornography, antiprostitution sentiments in order to get back at the copyright trolls.

      Government censorship is wrong wrong wrong, and antipornography laws are censorship.

  • nostrafarious

    OMG, What a fucking shithole this world has turned into. The UK may be a bit further down the crapper than the rest of us, but we’re real close behind and catching up real fast.

  • Badboyboatclub

    @ Fredrika.

    Clearly you areconfused and lying.

    This was a judgement by Mr Justice Arnold determining the Pirate bay to be illegal.

    The injunctions were a separate matter.

    If you believe what you are saying to be correct then one would have to wonder why are these ISPs not availing of your legal prowess to have the judgement and the subsequent injunctions overturned?

    Could it be bacause you are talking bollocks (as usual)?

    • Anyone

      or maybe because they don’t care and don’t want any further legal costs?
      some ISPs are owned by media companies as well, so even less reason to fight this sort of censorship

    • Fredrika

      > “This was a judgement by Mr Justice Arnold determining the Pirate bay to be illegal.”

      And you still don’t understand, a UK judge simply claiming that something that isn’t hosted in the UK is illegal doesn’t make it so, because of a little something called jurisdiction. No UK judge can decide that something outside of UK is illegal. The judicial system simply doesn’t work that way.

      You need to read up on what an equitable remedy is. It has never decided what’s illegal.

      > “If you believe what you are saying to be correct then one would have to wonder why are these ISPs not availing of your legal prowess to have the judgement and the subsequent injunctions overturned?”

      Because what’s illegal is irrelevant to injunctions.

      • Anon

        There have been lawful restrictions on copying in support of the creation and sale of intellectual property since about 1662. Throughout centuries this system has rewarded both the workers and their industries, as government has intended. The restrictions remain in place, in fact the ONLY thing that has changed has been your technical ability to break the law in private. How small minded piracy is. “Free culture.” ;-)

        Fredrika pedantically explains (over and over and over) that the laws don’t apply to her and those who think as she does. She has a computer and she’s entitled to copies to avoid the purchase price because it is her version of capitalism. This is not what the law says at all, but very well.

        Let’s hope someday your silly words will have a chance to be heard by the lawyers and barristers and judges when you can explain to THEM that you and your ilk are above the law. If you have any conviction at all, you’d welcome that and take the initiative of your beliefs, and stop your pointless whining here as some kind of adolescent keyboard warrior. But you don’t. You’d rather condescend in the tone of a teenager. Which renders you a child with no experience in business and clearly no comprehension of the law, a kind of pointless clown cheered on by your clowny legion. You are a cartoon. lol

        So you go ahead believing and boasting whatever rubbish of the moment suits your purposes, and we’ll retain our rights to enforce the law and pass new ones, year after year, driving accountability whether you like to be part of accountable society or not, stripping you of your privacy, removing anonymity online from all but the most hardened idiots, and like Jammie Thomas who actually had to defend her asinine views in public, stripping you of your intellectual dignity in a court of law whenever we are given the chance.

        You get to hide and pirate free movies and music and books, depriving the authors of their rights to their intent of purchase price. And in return, and ever more so in recent years as this sorts out, we get to surveille you and monitor you and censor you and eventually catch and convict and punish you, as recent history reveals in wave upon wave. This is not going away, Fredrika, and we don’t have to hide, yopu do, not as long as one artist who wants to sell their goods remains while you have to sink deeper and deeper to try to evade detection. So you have at it, if you think this is a good way to live your life. Purchase price=fascism. lol Seems fair to me.

        • Guest

          I guess you must jizz in the pants at the thoughts of eventually banning the ability to store data on blank media devices eh, Anon? Until then you must be content with Daddy Pelouzey giving you his industry white chocolate under the special desk.

        • http://openid.anonymity.com/u6rkzx Answer or Forever Shut up

          Sorry but I do have to ask you 1 thing, what would you do to these filthy pirates right here in this article:
          http://torrentfreak.com/exposed-bittorrent-pirates-at-the-doj-parliaments-record-labels-and-more-121226/

          I believe judging by your posts they deserve to be sentenced to life in prison and have Bubba give them a nice little treat (like you yourself advocated)

        • Wal~Mart

          Boy oh boy boss, you sure told her gosh darnitt. I love that word “pedantically” you used. Guess thats why your the boss man. Hey, lets go get some popcorn with hot jizz, I mean butter on it and celerbate these pirates going to the hoosegow.

        • icec0ld

          “There have been lawful restrictions on copying in support of the creation and sale of intellectual property since about 1662. Throughout centuries this system has rewarded both the workers and their industries, as government has intended. The restrictions remain in place, in fact the ONLY thing that has changed has been your technical ability to break the law in private. How small minded piracy is. “Free culture.” ;-)”

          Care to actually quote this law and the cases that set the precedent for modern enforcement of such a law?

          Frankly, it doesn’t (or least it shouldn’t) take a law student or lawyer to know when someone is referring to case or law 500 years old they know next to nothing about it and hoping others are the same or simply grasping at an outdated and overruled law.

          Of course you’re just speaking in generalities so I doubt you’re going to give a specific answer. I’ll say this that no one has a right to be paid for just creating. They need to actually sell something in order to qualify the right to payment.

        • Fredrika

          > “There have been lawful restrictions on copying in support of the creation and sale of intellectual property since about 1662.”

          Which i have never denied. This discussion however is not about copying.

          > “Throughout centuries this system has rewarded both the workers and their industries..”

          Nope. Sales have. A monopoly is not a required part of making a sale.

          > “..as government has intended.”

          Nope, governments intention with copyright is clearly stated, and that’s something else.

          > “Fredrika pedantically explains (over and over and over) that the laws don’t apply to her and those who think as she does.”

          I have never done that. Please quote the paragraph which you interpreted in such a surreal manner, and i will help you read it properly.

          > “She has a computer and she’s entitled to copies..”

          I have never claimed that. Please quote that which i have written, which you interpreted in such a surreal manner, and i will help you read it properly, so that you can understand what it actually says.

          > “..to avoid the purchase price..”

          Not buying makes you avoid the purchase price.

          > “..because it is her version of capitalism.”

          A cornerstone of actual capitalism is the act of using once’s scarce resources in an intelligent way to make them last as long as possible, which includes buying what you want from a cheaper retailer or manufacturing items yourself instead of buying them at a more expensive price. Ask your economics teacher if you don’t belive me. Or preferably, take a basic course in economics before commenting any further.

          > “This is not what the law says at all..”

          The law does not decide what capitalism is. You have to be really ignorant to believe otherwise.

          > “Let’s hope someday your silly words will have a chance to be heard by the lawyers and barristers and judges..”

          Why should they, when i never claimed that they have any legal relevance to a particular countries legislation?

          > “..when you can explain to THEM that you and your ilk are above the law.”

          I have never claimed anyone to be above the law. If you have interpreted anything i have written in such a surreal manner, please quote that paragraph and i will help you read it properly. Ok?

          > “Which renders you a child with no experience in business and clearly no comprehension of the law..”

          Coming from the person who doesn’t even understands his own consumer legislation, and the fact that only two things can be sold, goods or services, and that on-line digital files are never goods of any kind.

          > “You get to hide and pirate free movies and music and books, depriving the authors of their rights to their intent of purchase price.”

          You really have no idea whatsoever of what copyright laws actually says, now do you?

          > “Purchase price=fascism.”

          No one has ever claimed that. Dismantling human rights and civil liberties for all people to uphold a legislative monopoly that society has no proven need for however, that is fascism.

          > “Seems fair to me.”

          Your straw-man seems fair to you? How about commenting on reality instead?

      • Badboyboatclub

        Fredrika, you said “What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.”.

        I have proven you wrong. You are talking fantastical bollocks as usual. Here is an explanation from your friends and co-travellers at the ORG http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay

        Having established the operators’ liability, The Pirate Bay was found to be infringing copyright under section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. 97A of the same Act entitles the claimants to seek an injunction, which implements Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC. This is exactly the same way that Newzbin was found to be infringing copyright.”

        Perhaps you should offer your legal expertize to them as well as the ISPs in question because (according to your alternative reality) everyone in the legal profession is wrong and you are right.

        • icec0ld

          Care to quote a wiki site with actual citations in it’s conclusions, specifically the part you have quoted is without any citation to a outside source thus likely a completely made up fact.

          If you actually read the pirate bay ruling you can find allot of farcical nonsense based on Swedish rulings from the clearly and outright outrageous bias of the judges and their rulings against Pirate Bay. Hopefully when EU human rights interfere these arguments made with the support of these corrupt rulings hold repercussions for the ordered blocking of TPB in the UK.

          Really, having read the case it’s clear that the fact Pirate Bay would not or could not be present at the case means the judge was free to rule against them.

          The current injunction to order the blocking of Pirate Bay is more akin to the sentence Egypt handed down to the makers of “Innocence Of Muslims” film. Clearly handed down as symbol and a political stunt with no real place in a civilized countries law system, eating tax dollars and wasting time.

        • Fredrika

          > “Fredrika, you said “What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.”.”

          Correct, and i stand by that claim, exactly as it is written. Because only one thing decides that, precedent penal sentences within the jurisdiction of that court. Those does not exist.

          > “I have proven you wrong.”

          No, you have referenced irrelevant injunctions and non-penal sentences that talk about things outside the courts jurisdiction. That does not prove my claim wrong.

          > “Here is an explanation from..”

          You still haven’t understood what injunctions and equitable remedies are? They do not decide whether any law has been broken, what’s unlawful, or what acts that generally equals facilitating infringements.

          > “Perhaps you should offer your legal expertize to them as well as the ISPs in question because (according to your alternative reality) everyone in the legal profession is wrong and you are right.”

          The quotes you have produced does not go against my claim, as it actually was written. Maybe you should re-read it a couple of times.

        • Badboyboatclub

          @ Fredrika. Now, now, Fredrika….you have been shown to be confused, lying and ill informed. I know you are butt hurt because your legion of fanboys now see you for what you are…an unqualified fantasist living in an alternative reality.

          You are now refusing to read, or are denying the existence of, the judgement.

          Here is a link, take time to read it as I’m sure your fanboys will http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html&query=pirate+and+bay&method=boolean

          The judgement states clearly from 81 onwards that the judge (acting in his capacity as a member of the judiciary – ie representing the law of the land on this matter) considerered all of the evidence placed before him before ruling the Pirate Bay, its past infringement and facilitation of infringement illegal (contrary to your ridiculous “la, la, I’m not listening” claim).

          He ruled the site and its operations to be illegal. I have provided a link to the actual judgement and quoted directly from it. On that basis he then was able to issue the injunctions.

          Issuing the injunction without first determining / ruling on the legality of the site, it’s functions and the intent of the operators would have been a logical fallacy (sorry, couldn’t resist).

          These are the facts. You can try to distort / misrepresent them but you cannot undo them (especially since you are not in any way legally qualified to do so).

          Stop lying to yourself and others. Stop wilfully trying to confuse issues to avoid being exposed as an ill informed fool and stop using terminology you don’t even comprehend in an attempt to appear smarter than you might be.

          You have been exposed as lying, deal with it.

          Put your toys, your strawmen arguments, flying pink elephants and pretentious references to communism / fascism / logical fallacies back in your pram.

          Have a nice day.

          @ icec0ld. See above.

        • Fredrika

          > “..you have been shown to be confused, lying and ill informed.”

          That would still be you.

          > “You are now refusing to read, or are denying the existence of, the judgement.”

          Nope, i haven’t done neither, i have however tried to clarify to you what the judgement means and more importantly what it doesn’t mean.

          > “The judgement states clearly from 81 onwards that the judge (acting in his capacity as a member of the judiciary – ie representing the law of the land on this matter) considerered all of the evidence placed before him before ruling the Pirate Bay..”

          He has no jurisdiction over Pirate Bay. His ruling therefore has no relevance regarding it’s operations, whether or not they are illegal or facilitating infringements.

          > “..its past infringement..”

          Pirate Bay or it’s operators have never sentenced for performing any infringements. You know this very well.

          > “..and facilitation of infringement illegal (contrary to your ridiculous “la, la, I’m not listening” claim).”

          Funny thing that, i don’t see the word illegal in his judgement.

          Maybe you also don’t understand the difference between penal law and civil law, or what equitable remedies are?

          > “He ruled the site and its operations to be illegal.”

          This is a clear lie from you. He did not rule anything about the site. He only reference the operators, which he has no jurisdiction over, and the users, which he knows nothing of.

          > “I have provided a link to the actual judgement and quoted directly from it.”

          And nothing in there supports your claims, nor does any of it goes against my initial claim, that you for some reason seem to have a hard time reading properly.

          > “These are the facts.”

          And the facts are the following, the judge does not say that Pirate Bay is illegal, nor does he have any jurisdiction over Pirate Bay or it’s operators, nor does anything in his judgement goes against my initial claim, that you yourself have quoted, without having understood what it actually says. Please, read it again and again and again until you understand what it actually says.

          > “You can try to distort / misrepresent them..”

          That would be you doing that, not me.

          > “Stop lying to yourself and others. Stop wilfully trying to confuse issues to avoid being exposed as an ill informed fool and stop using terminology you don’t even comprehend in an attempt to appear smarter than you might be.”

          Coming from the person who claims words exists in judgements despite that fact that they don’t. Coming from the person who references judgement that because of jurisdiction are irrelevant. Coming from the person who clearly have no understanding for how the judicial system actually works, regarding what equitable remedies are, and more importantly, what they aren’t.

          > “You have been exposed as lying, deal with it.”

          On the contrary, you have been that.

        • Jimmy671

          What do we have here a brand new troll.
          Kindly return to the boat club and be a bad boy there.

        • Badboyboatclub

          @ Fredrika.

          Again with the denial and talking childish bollocks.

          You said “What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.”

          The UK is a jurisdiction.

          The judge found that….“The Pirate Bay was found to be infringing copyright under section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988″. Its actions and purpose are therefore illegal (adults know that infringing copyrights in contravention of the Act is illegal – only a child would need it spelt out for them).

          You are lying and have been proven to be wrong. You cannot accept the truth / reality that what you thought to be fact was indeed existing merely in your head and that your fanboys are starting to wake up to the fact that you are little more than an ill informed cut and paste fantasist.

          Wake up and smell the coffee. If you are right them why are you not part of a legal team arguing to have these injunctions overturned based on something other than your saying so?

          Why should we believe that BT, Virgin Media etc and their respectful legal teams are less legally knowledgable than you on these matters? What higher legal authority than their qualifications and experience are you drawing on? What UK legal precedent that they are seemingly not aware of are you relying upon to assert that the Pirate Bay functions are not illegal in that particular jurisdiction in order to overturn these injunctions?

          Answer those questions. Share your knowledge and well rounded legal experience with us, please.

          What’s that? It’s simply because you “think” you are right?

          Yes Fredrika, you are confused, you are a fantasist and your little game of quasi intellectual subversion is coming to an end.

        • Fredrika

          > “You said “What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.”"

          Correct, did you notice the word generally?

          Secondly, you still haven’t understood what equitable remedies are. Judgements from those does not decide what acts that constitutes facilitating anything. Only penal sentences does that.

          > “The UK is a jurisdiction.”

          Under which the Pirate Bay doesn’t fall.

          > “The judge found that….”

          ..Nothing illegal was going on, which lied about in your previous post.

          > “..Its actions and purpose are therefore illegal (adults know that infringing copyrights in contravention of the Act is illegal..”

          Here we seem to have found the problem. You, having no knowledge whatsoever of how the judicial system actually works, tried to draw a conclusion about something outside of the UK being illegal, because of what you have read in a UK sentence. Big mistake.

          Some adults do know that copyright is a civil matter, and that only penal matter decides what’s illegal. You apparently don’t. You need to read up on the difference between penal law and civil law.

          > “You are lying and have been proven to be wrong.”

          That would still be you. You still reference a UK equitable remedy judgement, regarding a non UK-hosted/operated site. The judge has no jurisdiction over non-UK sites or people outside of UK, his words about them are irrelevant, and nothing in that judgement goes against my initial claim, regarding what the judicial system generally considers to be facilitating infringements.

          > “If you are right them why are you not part of a legal team arguing to have these injunctions overturned based on something other than your saying so?”

          You are starting to sound nervous, trying to rationalise why you should be right. Had you had any actual knowledge of how the judicial system actually works, or knowledge of what equitable remedies are, you wouldn’t have done that.

          > “Why should we believe that BT, Virgin Media etc and their respectful legal teams are less legally knowledgable than you on these matters?”

          I have not argued that they are. But they, as me, understand what equitable remedies are, and they also understand that the fact that i stated in my initial claim has no relevance for those.

          > “What UK legal precedent that they are seemingly not aware of are you relying upon to assert that the Pirate Bay functions are not illegal..”

          They are aware, and that would be the fact that no judge has ever claimed that they are illegal. You do realise that you just been caught when you lied about things being illegal despite the fact that that never was stated in the judgement you quoted from?

          The problem seems to be that you lack the most basic fundamental knowledge of law and how the judicial system works. But i’ll try to help you again.

          1) One thing decides what the judicial system generally considers to be illegal. Precedent penal sentences. The key word being penal. No such UK sentences exist regarding unmoderated torrent sites.

          2) UK Copyright law is civil law, not penal.

          3) An equitable remedy judgement, which is what you continuously reference, is something different than penal law. It can never decide what’s illegal or generally facilitating infringements, thus my initial claim still stands, exactly as it was written.

          4) Because of a concept called jurisdiction, a UK judge can not decide what acts that are illegal, or what acts that constitute facilitating infringements, outside of the UK.

          Still don’t get it? Keep banging your head then.

        • Badboyboatclub

          @ Fredrika (and other interested parties).

          I understand that neither truth, fact, English nor reality are your first language so in an attempt to help to clear up the confusion you seem to be suffering from here is a link to the ruling determining the Pirate Bay and to be illegal under the applicable laws of the UK jurisdiction http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html#para9

          This ruling is dated 20th February 2012.

          In his ruling the judge (acting in his capacity as a fully qualified member of the judiciary for the UK jurisdiction) ruled as follows:

          “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.

          Conclusion

          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.”

          This ruling is on the UK statute books – hence the ISPs are complying with the subsequent injunctions. Whether you like it or not this disproves your earlier lie “….there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.”

          The subsequent injunctions http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1152.html&query=Pirate+and+Bay&method=boolean were issued on May 2nd 2012 – after the Pirate Bay and its functions had been ruled illegal in the UK by a fully qualified member of the British judiciary.

          They (the ruling and injunctions) are two entirely separate things.

          An infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infringement is a violation of a law or a right. Ergo by definition it is illegal. You can get your knickers in a twist all you want but the fact is that all of the Major ISPs in the UK who have been ordered to enforce this injunction are doing so. Why do you think that is?

          Now, again. Given your frequent cut and paste repetition of the right to share knowledge and culture freely (as opposed to for free) please share with us your answers to the following.

          Why are you not part of a legal team arguing to have these injunctions overturned based on something other than your saying so?

          Why should we believe that BT, Virgin Media etc and their respectful legal teams are less legally knowledgeable than you on these matters?

          What higher legal authority than their qualifications and experience are you drawing on?

          What UK legal precedent that they are seemingly not aware of are you relying upon to assert that the Pirate Bay functions are not illegal in that particular jurisdiction in order to overturn these injunctions?

          Answer those questions directly and not in your usual juvenile, flying pink elephant, strawman, circular reasoning, logical fallacy, fascist, communistic, free market espousing bollocks. Share your knowledge and well rounded legal experience with us, please. Be specific for once and corroborate what you say with actual evidence. After all, that is how the law works – it is how the ruling was arrived at and how the injunction was issued.

          Tell us, tell us all Fredrika….how come some of the greatest legal minds in the UK – in the pay of some of the biggest corporations in the UK – have been duped by this judge and you seemingly know better?

          What do you know that they don’t?

          I call on you, in the true spirit of Piracy, to release the information, share it – piracy will hail you as a God, they will erect statues in your memory! They will re-write statutes in your name.

          Rather than just repeatedly spouting an easily contradicted opinion it would be helpful if you might substantiate any of your statements. Links to the precedents and statutes relevant to the UK jurisdiction upon which you base your dismissal of thgeir provenance would be a help for a start.

          Can you provide those?

          Perhaps then people (particularly adults) might take your opinions just a bit seriously rather than nose coffeeing every time you insult your keyboard by typing the juvenile drivel you think is “fact”.

        • Fredrika

          > “..here is a link to the ruling determining the Pirate Bay and to be illegal..”

          Nope, that wasn’t what the ruling actually said, that was your own conclusion of the words in the ruling, remember?

          > “..under the applicable laws of the UK jurisdiction..”

          Under which the Pirate Bay and it’s operators doesn’t fall.

          > “For the reasons set out above, I conclude that both users and the operators of TPB..”

          Users and operators, not the site in itself.

          > “..infringe the copyrights of the Claimants (and those they represent) in the UK.”"

          UK copyright law is irrelevant for Pirate Bay and it’s operators, because of a concept called jurisdiction.

          > “This ruling is on the UK statute books – hence the ISPs are complying with the subsequent injunctions.”

          IPS’s has have to comply with injunctions regardless of any rulings.

          > “Whether you like it or not this disproves your earlier lie “….there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.”"

          It does does not, because the ruling does not say that unmoderated torrent sites generally facilitate any infringements.

          > “..after the Pirate Bay and its functions had been ruled illegal..”

          Which they hadn’t.

          > “..in the UK..”

          Where the Pirate Bay and it’s operator don’t reside.

          > “They (the ruling and injunctions) are two entirely separate things.”

          I have not claimed otherwise.

          > “An infringement..//.. is a violation of a law or a right. Ergo by definition it is illegal.”

          Nope, you still haven’t figured out the difference between penal law and civil law? Violating penal law is illegal. Violating civil law is not illegal.

          > “..but the fact is that all of the Major ISPs in the UK who have been ordered to enforce this injunction are doing so. Why do you think that is?”

          I don’t think anything? I know that they are doing it because they’ve gotten an injunction against them, that orders them to do so.

          > “Given your frequent cut and paste repetition of the right to share knowledge and culture freely..”

          You seem to be confusing me with someone else? I have never claimed any such thing. If you have interpreted any of my statements in such a surreal manner, please quote that paragraph immediately, and i will help you read it properly, so that you can understand what i actually wrote. But that’s not going to happen, now is it?

          > “Why are you not part of a legal team..”

          When did i ever claim not to be?

          > “..arguing to have these injunctions overturned based on something other than your saying so?”

          I have never claimed that any of my statements have any relevance for these injunctions.

          > “Why should we believe that BT, Virgin Media etc and their respectful legal teams are less legally knowledgeable than you on these matters?”

          I have never argued that they are.

          > “What higher legal authority than their qualifications and experience are you drawing on?”

          I have never claimed to be doing so on any higher legal authority.

          > “What UK legal precedent that they are seemingly not aware of are you relying upon to assert that the Pirate Bay functions are not illegal..”

          The judicial system doesn’t work that way. A precedent is what can make things illegal, and the absence of a such is the reason the judicial system still considers unmoderated torrent sites to be legal in every single country in the world, including the UK.

          > “..in that particular jurisdiction in order to overturn these injunctions?”

          Overturn? When did i ever claim that anything has been overturned?

          > “Be specific for once and corroborate what you say with actual evidence.”

          As in educating you on how the judicial system actually works?

          > “..how come some of the greatest legal minds in the UK – in the pay of some of the biggest corporations in the UK – have been duped by this judge..”

          I have never claimed that they have been duped?

          > “..upon which you base your dismissal of thgeir provenance..”

          Which i haven’t done.

        • Guest

          @Badboyboatclub You state “This ruling is on the UK statute books – hence the ISPs are complying with the subsequent injunctions.”

          For your information I live in the UK and my ISP here does NOT block access to The Pirate Bay and not only that there are other ISP’s here that also do not block access to The Pirate Bay and access to The Pirate Bay still remains as such.

          Only a small number of ISP’s here in the UK were ordered by the injunction to block access to The Pirate Bay for its users so if it is against the law or is illegal to access The Pirate Bay here then it can’t be against the law or illegal to access The Pirate Bay.

          For as long as there is at least one ISP here that still allows access The Pirate Bay then no law has been broken and it can’t be illegal to access The Pirate Bay either.

          If the point of the injunction was to block access to The Pirate Bay then it is a complete and utter failure considering that only a small number of ISP’s here in the UK were served with the injunction whilst the other ISP’s here did not get served with the injunction.

          So how can it be against the law or illegal to access The Pirate Bay when there are still ISP’s here in the UK who still allow access to The Pirate Bay because they have not been served with the injunction and don’t have to comply with the injunction because they were not served or named in the injunction.

        • Badboyboatclub

          @ Fredrika.

          Aha, the old “poor understanding of English defence” where you wilfully misinterpret, misrepresent and twist the words of others.

          You are running out of distorted realities to hide behind. Your logical fallacies are inverting on you.

          The facts are that the Pirate Bay (and not as you now try to put it “unmoderated torrent sites”) has been ruled illegal in the UK. Subsequently an injunction has been put in place ordering ISPs ytoi block access to it.

          Is the depth of your supposed legal knowledge as simple as “it doesn’t say illegal in the ruling”?

          Is that your genius defence?

          Do you not think the teams of lawyers acting for BT, Virgin Media et al might have used that in their attempt to have the injunction declared void?

          I wonder why they didn’t?

          Could it be because they, unlike you, are legally qualified to evaluate and comment on such matters and also that they (collectively – again unlike you) didn’t want to be laughed at and ridiculed in public?

          Quite possibly.

          How does a judge ruling the Pirate Bay to be illegal in a jurisdiction he / she is legally qualified to rule in not contradict your ill informed lie “that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements”.

          Justice Arnold made a precedent (one of your favourite words
          ) ruling. He determined that their activities and functions were in direct violation of copyrights. He went as far as to say “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.”

          The subsequent injunction (or “equitable remedy” – another of your favourite terms) is an entirely separate matter from – though wholly dependant on – the ruling as to the illegal nature of the Pirate Bay and its functions.

          Your lies and logical fallacies are catching up on you. You are confused.

          I am able to quote from and link to the relevant rulings. You, on the other hand, are unable to offer anything substantive to bolster your argument or position other than to repeatedly shift / change the argument when you are exposed as a liar and a fraud.

          The Pirate Bay has, irrespective of what you might think you know about jurisdictional law, been ruled as illegal in the UK – you cannot deny that fact. To attempt to deny that fact is an attempt to deny reality and expose yourself as an ill informed fantasist..

          Again Fredrika.

          Why are you not part of a legal team arguing to have these injunctions overturned based on something other than your saying so?

          Why should we believe that BT, Virgin Media etc and their respectful legal teams are less legally knowledgeable than you on these matters?

          What higher legal authority than their qualifications and experience are you drawing on?

          What UK legal precedent that they are seemingly not aware of are you relying upon to assert that the Pirate Bay functions are not illegal in that particular jurisdiction in order to overturn these injunctions?

          Answer those questions directly and not in your usual juvenile, flying pink elephant, strawman, circular reasoning, logical fallacy, fascist, communistic, free market espousing bollocks. Share your knowledge and well rounded legal experience with us, please. Be specific for once and corroborate what you say with actual evidence. After all, that is how the law works – it is how the ruling was arrived at and how the injunction was issued.

          Tell us, tell us all Fredrika….how come some of the greatest legal minds in the UK – in the pay of some of the biggest corporations in the UK – have been duped by this judge and you seemingly know better?

          What do you know that they don’t?

          I call on you, in the true spirit of Piracy, to release the information, share it – piracy will hail you as a God, they will erect statues in your memory! They will re-write statutes in your name.

          Rather than just repeatedly spouting an easily contradicted opinion it would be helpful if you might substantiate any of your statements. Links to the precedents and statutes relevant to the UK jurisdiction upon which you base your dismissal of their provenance would be a help for a start.

          Can you provide those or are you going to insist on avoiding the real questions and issues and instead keep propagating the rubbish you spout as being anything other than your ill informed juvenile opinion?

        • Fredrika

          > “Aha, the old “poor understanding of English defence” where you wilfully misinterpret, misrepresent and twist the words of others.”

          To what do you refer?

          > “You are running out of distorted realities to hide behind.”

          I’m trying my best you help you, that is not the same thing as hiding.

          > “Your logical fallacies are inverting on you.”

          Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? Please, if you believe any of my statements to be a logical fallacy, quote it, so i can understand what you refer to, and then i will explain to you why it isn’t.

          > “The facts are that the Pirate Bay (and not as you now try to put it “unmoderated torrent sites”)..”

          Now try to put it? Shall we take a look at the initial statement again, because you seem to have serious problem reading it properly.

          > “..that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements”

          Fist of all, generally means that i’m talking about what the judicial systems considers regarding all torrent sites, unnamed ones, not a particular named one.

          Secondly, does refer to what Pirate Bay offer, as in an unmoderated torrent site.

          Was it you who spoke of English not being someone’s first language, yet you yourself can’t seem to understand what i actually wrote?

          My initial claim still stands exactly as it is written, but apparently you still can’t seem to be able to read it properly.

          > “..has been ruled illegal in the UK.”

          Nope, that is still your personal conclusion, and the problem with your conclusion is that it is based on a complete lack on fundamental understanding for how the judicial system actually works, regarding what that makes things illegal.

          One thing does that, penal sentences, of which there exists none in this case. Judgements do not.

          Secondly, Pirate Bay is not hosted nor operated from the UK, so UK judgements has no jurisdiction over what Pirate Bay or it’s operators does.

          > “Is the depth of your supposed legal knowledge as simple as “it doesn’t say illegal in the ruling”?”

          Nope.

          > “Is that your genius defence?”

          Nope. Understanding for how the judicial system actually works is.

          > “Do you not think the teams of lawyers acting for BT, Virgin Media et al might have used that in their attempt to have the injunction declared void?”

          No, i do not, and i have not claimed that any of my statements are the least bit relevant for the judgement you refer to, or the latter injunction.

          > “I wonder why they didn’t?”

          I already told you, and i just did again. But you don’t seem to listen.

          > “Could it be because they, unlike you, are legally qualified to evaluate and comment on such matters and also that they (collectively – again unlike you) didn’t want to be laughed at and ridiculed in public?”

          First of all, do not pretend to now anything of my legal qualifications.

          Secondly, i already explained several times that my clams are irrelevant to those legal proceedings, so there’s no reason to mention any of it.

          > “How does a judge ruling the Pirate Bay to be illegal..”

          Which he didn’t do.

          > “..in a jurisdiction he / she is legally qualified to rule in not contradict your ill informed lie “that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements”.”

          Because a judgement in a particular case doesn’t decide what’s generally considered to be facilitating any infringements. Only precedent penal sentences decides the latter.

          > “Justice Arnold made a precedent (one of your favourite words
          ) ruling.”

          He has not handed down any penal precedent sentences(all three words together is the only thing that decides what generally is illegal or facilitating any infringements) regarding the discussed topics.

          > “He determined that their activities and functions were in direct violation of copyrights.”

          He has no jurisdiction over their activities and functions, so he claiming so is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

          > “The subsequent injunction (or “equitable remedy” – another of your favourite terms)..”

          One that you don’t seem to understand the meaning of. That’s another problem with this discussion, that you don’t, and that you don’t understand it’s relevance.

          > “..is an entirely separate matter from – though wholly dependant on – the ruling as to the illegal nature of the Pirate Bay and its functions.”

          That ruling does not determine any illegal nature of Pirate Bay and it’s functions. The ruling only refers to the users and operators, and secondly, a ruling is not a penal sentence, which his the only thing that determines if anything is illegal.

          > “I am able to quote from and link to the relevant rulings.”

          Which doesn’t support your claims. Your claims are based on your misinterpretation of the law and the rulings alone. Had you had any understanding for the law or the judicial system you would have understood that the rulings don’t say what you believe them to say, and that they don’t contradict my initial claim.

          > “You, on the other hand, are unable to offer anything substantive to bolster your argument or position..”

          Which argument is that? What position is that?

          > “..other than to repeatedly shift / change the argument when you are exposed as a liar and a fraud.”

          Which i haven’t done, my initial claim still stands exactly as it is written. Subsequently, when you have made incorrect claims, i have simply explained your misunderstandings to you. That does not equal being exposed as a liar and fraud.

          > The Pirate Bay has, irrespective of what you might think you know about jurisdictional law, been ruled as illegal in the UK – you cannot deny that fact.”

          It’s rather easy to deny that, because it isn’t a fact, That’s your misinterpretation of a ruling regarding operators and users, and not any alleged illegality

          > “To attempt to deny that fact..”

          But it isn’t a fact.

          > “..is an attempt to deny reality and expose yourself as an ill informed fantasist..”

          It’s an attempt at helping you understand the judicial system. If anything it exposes your ignorance regarding that.

          > “Why are you not part of a legal team..”

          When did i say i wasn’t?

          > “..arguing to have these injunctions overturned based on something other than your saying so?”

          Me saying what? I have never said that anything of what i have stated has any relevance that should affect these injunctions.

          > “Why should we believe that BT, Virgin Media etc and their respectful legal teams are less legally knowledgeable than you on these matters?”

          Again, i have never claimed that they are.

          > “What higher legal authority than their qualifications and experience are you drawing on?”

          When did i claim to draw on any higher legal authority? I didn’t.

          > “What UK legal precedent that they are seemingly not aware of are you relying upon to assert that the Pirate Bay functions are not illegal..”

          The judicial system doesn’t work that way. A penal precedent sentence is the only thing that make things to be considered generally illegal, and the absence of a such is the reason the judicial system still considers unmoderated torrent sites to be legal in every single country in the world, including the UK.

          > “..in that particular jurisdiction in order to overturn these injunctions?”

          Overturn? When did i ever claim that anything has or should be been overturned?

          > “Answer those questions directly..”

          I did in my last comment. You disregarded the responses and simply repeated the questions. That won’t get you anywhere.

          > “Tell us, tell us all Fredrika….how come some of the greatest legal minds in the UK – in the pay of some of the biggest corporations in the UK – have been duped by this judge..”

          I never claimed they were duped.

          > “..and you seemingly know better?”

          Which i never claimed to do.

          > “What do you know that they don’t?”

          Which i never claimed to do in the first place.

          > “..upon which you base your dismissal of their provenance would be a help for a start.”

          Which i haven’t done.

          > “Can you provide those..”

          Since i haven’t done what you claim, there’s nothing to provide.

          > “..or are you going to insist on avoiding the real questions..”

          The real questions seems to be(although everyone reading already have figured out the answers) if you understand the difference between penal law and civil law, and if you understand which is the only of those that can render acts illegal, individually or generally, or if you understand what an non-penal judgement is, or if you understand the difference between a site and an operator, or if you understand the concept of jurisdictions.

          > “..and issues..”

          What issues would those be?

        • Guest

          @Badboyboatclub in your comment above to Fredrika you state The facts are that the Pirate Bay (and not as you now try to put it “unmoderated torrent sites”) has been ruled illegal in the UK. Subsequently an injunction has been put in place ordering ISPs ytoi block access to it.”

          For your information my ISP here in the UK does not block access to The Pirate Bay because this “injunction” was never served on my ISP and was never served on other ISP’s here either and my ISP was never named in the “injunction” and neither were other ISP’s here named in the “injunction”.

          My ISP here and other ISP’s here have not been forced to block access to The Pirate Bay and therefore they don’t have to comply the “injunction” and by not complying with the “injunction” they are not breaking the “injunction” and neither are they breaking the law for still allowing access to The Pirate Bay.

          My ISP and other ISP’s here have not been served with this “injunction” and are not named in the “injunction” so access to The Pirate Bay by these ISP’s is not breaking the “injunction” and also not breaking the law.

          So it is not illegal or breaking the law for these ISP’s to allow access to The Pirate Bay.

          You also say “unomoderated torrent sites” has been ruled illegal in the UK. Well my ISP and other ISP’s here still allow access to “unmoderated torrent sites” because my ISP and other ISP’s here were not served with the “injunction”.

          The “injunction” to block access to The Pirate Bay does NOT apply to my ISP or other ISP’s here because they were NOT served with the “injunction” and they were NOT named in the “injunction”. The “injunction” to block access to The Pirate Bay ONLY applies to those ISP’s that were served with the injunction or named in the “injunction” So my ISP and other ISP’s who were not served or mentioned in the “injunction” are also NOT breaking the law with still allowing access to The Pirate Bay.

        • Guest

          @Badboyboatclub

          Further to my comment above. There were ONLY 6 ISP’s here in the UK that were given an injunction to block access to The Pirate Bay. My ISP and the other ISP’s here in the UK were not named or served by this injunction and therefore the blocking of access to The Pirate Bay does NOT apply to them at all!

        • Badboyboatclub

          @ Fredrika.

          You can prattle on about “precedent sentences” all you want but the fact is that something being illegal does not hinge on or require someone to be convicted for doing something. You are (typically) putting the cart before the horse. You clearly have no clue whatsoever as to how the law works.

          I notice you are still unable to provide links to anything whatsoever to back up your idiotic fantasy.

          No surprise there.

          Go and read the actual judgement, if you can, and then read the injunction (remedy).

          Provide me and the world with one, just one, link that proves your position in relation to this ruling / judgement. one link, just one, from a court of law in the uk jurisdiction that rules the Pirate Bay and it’s services as rendered to be entirely legal. Whats that? You can’t? Now there’s a surprise (not).

          Your last reply is so self contradictory it is beyond sad. Put simply. If, as you assert, That ruling does not determine any illegal nature of Pirate Bay and it’s functions then please explain why the six named ISPs, based on legal advice from their highly qualified counsel, are complying with the subsequent injunction?

          Have you advised them of this “fact” of yours? What was their reply? how many sides were split due to laughter during the course of your advising them?

          You are a fantasist who peddles lies. You inhabit an alternative reality where you think your opinion is higher than the law of the land. When challenged and then subsequently ridiculed for your pathetic “arguments” you throw the toys out of the pram. You’ve been exposed as a fraud, a charlatan and a liar with no grasp of or qualification in law though you would like to give the impression that you are well versed in same.

          In reality – as proven by the links I have provided to real and actual judgements and rulings you are a pathetic creation of teenage angst with little to no real life experience and an unhealthy dependancy on populism / likes gained by spouting shite on Torrentfreak.

          Your inability to comprehend even basic rudimentary laws and judgements goes quite some way to undermining the pro sharing movement.

          Well done you.

          I’d love to have an intelligent debate with you but sadly you’ve proven that to be impossible because you cannot corroborate anything you have said from a legal perspective and you are not prepared to deal with reality / the facts as presented to you and everyone else reading this.

          My work here is done.

          @ Guest. Thank you, nowhere did I suggest that anyone other than the defendants in the original hearing had to comply with the injunction. If your ISP was not listed then “Yay you!” (for the time being). I’m quite sure they’ll get around to you in due course. When they do you ought to get Fredrika on the case. I’m sure she’ll do an excellent job of defending you and your ISP should either of you feel like contesting the injunction.

          On a secondary note.

          When you actually learn to read you’ll discover that it was Fredrika who attempted to misdirect her being found out lying by her trying to change her position from “What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.” to …the ruling does not say that unmoderated torrent sites generally facilitate any infringements. because I had linked to an actual real life example of a ruling / judgement proving just that.

        • Fredrika

          > “..but the fact is that something being illegal does not hinge on or require someone to be convicted for doing something.”

          On the contrary, it does exactly just that. Had you known anything about penal law and how the judicial system works, you would have known that.

          > “I notice you are still unable to provide links to anything whatsoever to back up your idiotic fantasy.”

          I’m not sure what you want links provided for? I’ve asked you several times, but get no response. Secondly, the burden of proof does not lie upon me, it lies upon you, because you’re the one that claims that a site and what it offers is illegal.

          > “Go and read the actual judgement, if you can, and then read the injunction (remedy).”

          I have, that’s why i unlike you know that it a) doesn’t talk about any crimes and therefore something illegal, and b) it talks about the operators and users, not the site in itself or what it offers, which is the only thing this discussion and my original claim refers to.

          > “Provide me and the world with one, just one, link that proves your position in relation to this ruling / judgement.”

          The burden of proof lies upon you, and the only thing you have brought to the table is a judgement that doesn’t support any of your claims.

          > “..from a court of law in the uk jurisdiction that rules the Pirate Bay and it’s services as rendered to be entirely legal.”

          That’s impossible, because that’s not the way the judicial system works. Everything is legal, until it has been proven illegal. If no one can prove something to be illegal, it’s legal.

          > “..then please explain why the six named ISPs, based on legal advice from their highly qualified counsel, are complying with the subsequent injunction?”

          Because when you get an injunction against you, you do as you are told, or you will suffer the penalties stated in it. If one believes that the judgement the injunction is based on is incorrect that is a matter one can contest in court, if one feels up to it, but they still have to obey the injunction from the time it has been handed down and come into effect, otherwise penalties. Had you understood how the judicial system actually works, you would have known this, and not desperately tried to rationalise your conclusions by trying to backtrack alternative arguments believing it to be proof of anything.

          > “Have you advised them of this “fact” of yours?”

          They know the same thing i do, but as i have tried to explain to you several times, nothng of what i have stated has any relevance for thier case.

          > “Your inability to comprehend even basic rudimentary laws and judgements..”

          Coming from the person who doesn’t understand the difference between penal law and civil law, or the difference between crimes and infringements.

          > “..because you cannot corroborate anything you have said from a legal perspective..”

          I ask you over and over again, what you do want corroborated? I get no response.

          > “..trying to change her position from “What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.” to …the ruling does not say that unmoderated torrent sites generally facilitate any infringements.”

          Change? I stand by both claims, exactly as they are written, and the second one is a direct defence of the first one. But i guess you still haven’t understood the meaning of the word generally, despite that i explained it in my previous comment?

          > “..because I had linked to an actual real life example of a ruling / judgement proving just that.”

          No, you did not. Your ruling did not talk about Pirate Bay and what it does, or unmoderated torrent sites in general, it talks about the users and the operators only. Maybe you should read the judgement you yourself refer to? Quoted from it:

          > “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.

          > Conclusion
          > 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.”

          Not one single word about any crimes or facilitating anything. The only forbidden act mentioned is infringe, which is civil law not penal law, which means that what they are doing is not a crime, which means it isn’t illegal. The problem seems to be that you don’t understand the difference between penal law, which regulates crimes and illegal acts, from civil law, that regulates private issues, such as infringements in legislative monopolies.

        • Guest

          @Badboyboatclub

          You state to Frederike “In reality – as proven by the links I have provided to real and actual judgements and rulings you are a pathetic creation of teenage angst with little to no real life experience and an unhealthy dependancy on populism / likes gained by spouting shite on Torrentfreak.

          Your inability to comprehend even basic rudimentary laws and judgements goes quite some way to undermining the pro sharing movement.”

          It is you Badboyboatclub that can’t comprehend even basis rudimentary laws and judgements. For YOUR information the judgement/injunction ONLY applies to 6 of the ISP’s in the UK and does NOT apply to all of the ISP’s in the UK.

          There are more than 6 ISP’s and only those ISP’s mentioned in the judgement/injunction have to block access to The Pirate Bay. Those ISP’s that were not served by the injunction or named in the injunction do NOT block access to The Pirate Bay and it is NOT illegal for them to still allow access to The Pirate Bay because these ISP’s that are not mentioned in the injunction are not breaking any laws or even injunction for that matter because these were not served by the injunction as the injunction does NOT apply to them.

          The judgement and injunction that you keep on referring to does NOT apply to all UK ISP’s. I suggest you get your facts right before you start resorting to name calling etc, as you will only show yourself to be the same as how you judge people!!!!

        • Guest

          @Badboyboatclub

          “When you actually learn to read you’ll discover that it was Fredrika who attempted to misdirect her being found out lying by her trying to change her position from “What’s relevant is that there’s not one single jurisdiction in the world where the judicial system generally considers what Pirate Bay does to be facilitating any infringements.” to …the ruling does not say that unmoderated torrent sites generally facilitate any infringements. because I had linked to an actual real life example of a ruling / judgement proving just that.”

          When you actually find your brain you will discover that the UK law does NOT have the jurisdiction of law to state what is illegal or legal in another country only that countries laws can apply to that country.

        • Guest

          Badboyboatclub – Your comments have been reported for being insulting. The way you insult someone on here shows that you take pleasure in insulting someone to smear them so that you can look the better man when infact you are not the better man and in doing so is showing to everyone on here how very little of a man with having no respect for people.

    • Guest

      I would like to say that this High Court injunction of blocking access to TPB only applies to 6 UK ISP’s and that there is no injunction of blocking access to TPB on the remaining UK ISP’s and that they still allow access to TPB.

      So having this injunction of blocking access to TPB is a complete waste of time considering that other ISP’s still allow access.

  • http://gear-mentation.myopenid.com/ Gear Mentation

    ROTFLMFAO, OMG, was there ever a better way to get the United Kingdom to get a VPN than to take away their porn? OMG, THIS IS THE FUNNIEST THING EVER.

    OH… SIGH…. reading your update, it’s optional? SAD. I wish it was mandatory, we’d be one large step closer to the encrypted internet.

  • Guest

    Are we really heading towards a situation where VPN access to another (more forgiving) country becomes the norm because your government has been ‘paid off’ by the local MAFFIA so blocked anything to do with p2p and bowed down to the scaremongering parents/media over porn so you can’t even see a nipple online. ?

  • guess who

    someone said something about voting for a 3rd party. ukip seems to be the new 3rd party, what they have as far as i’m interested in is being anti europe,a shitefest we should never have joined beyond a free trade market. if they’re for a free internet and copyright reform… i’ll listen and maybe vote for them.

  • guest

    Im sorry when did it become an ISP’s responsibility to filter porn. All customer of the internet are adults and have all rights to not be censored. If this is a move to “protect the children” that should be up to the parents of the children to set up their own filter software on their home computers and other devices. Why should a paying adult that can legally view and be in porn have to call up their ISP and ask for permission to view adult content when they are an adult. IPS’s and government is not the parents of grown adults therefore adults should not have to ask permission to view adult content.

  • JG

    “The new anti-porn lists, which are opt-out, may end up instituting a block on torrent and other filesharing-related sites.”

    After reading there is a list in place… All I can picture is someone sitting at their ISP’s FAQ page with a list of sites blocked, trying to check them out but being unable to because he hasn’t opt’ed out of the filter yet….

    And the fact I’m getting so much “humor” out of that image probably means I should be in bed instead of spending so much of my life in cyber-land…

  • downunder

    hmm can they filter vpns dont think censorship really worked in iran and middle east and china right.. they like to think so

    sidenote:
    i notice the comments get clipped on TF if sentence too long
    or not wrapped properly..can change some words and meaning LOL
    like some gets cut to word “so” .. counted cut to count so on.
    maybe depends on font scale using? perhaps site admin can
    investigate their website comments

    • guess who

      some words also get repeated.

  • Bob

    My advice is to do what you should already be doing. Get a Vpn subscription in another country and make sure your apps use it. I feel sort for Joe user who hasn’t the faintest and will constantly be spied on.

  • JesusChristNotAgain

    What is so unnatural about sex. Humans are sexual creatures. Why ban, censor or prevent sex. Pornography is a representation of sex and sexuality using various forms of media. Let’s teach our kids about the potential benefits and pitfalls of sex and being sexual. Teach them that pornography doesn’t necessarily reflect reality.

    Let’s teach our kids that sex and pornography aren’t evil, that it doesn’t need to be banned or blocked. This is blatant censorship of something that just doesn’t need to be censored. Who doesn’t have sex in their lifetime or engage in sexual behaviour? Just about no one on the planet. We have a biological imperative to procreate, it’s built in, it’s instinctive. We are human and so we’re curious beings. We sometimes get into trouble – we can’t legislate curiosity away. That’s what the governments fail to realize again and again.

    My assertion is most folks find pornography interesting in some way and it sure isn’t something we need to protect anyone from. What about the children? Well sooner or later guess what? They find out for themselves even if you never raise the subject.

    Governments of the world stop trying to protect us from being human.

    • guess who

      i agree. i have 3 younger children, i don’t hide from them that people have sex and it is supposed to be fun. i’ve told them at some point they’ll want to engage in it. i believe in being honest and saving them from finding things out in a way which may hurt them emotionaly.

      if sex is so ‘bad’ why is so much art about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art

      like everything, sex is part of the human condition and artists, as with every other aspect, have made art about it. making one part of our life (cycle) taboo is completely stupid.

  • Bob

    Ha! I just realised. If this goes through, the internet business model for Ben Dover and golden eye is screwed! Serves The maggots Right!

  • http://twitter.com/krozareq krozareq

    The Empire Strikes Back.

    At porn.

  • Pingback: Will New UK Censorship Impact Torrent Sites? – TorrentFreak | Torrent Download

  • Pingback: Links 30/12/2012: PulseAudio 3.0, GNOME Adds Privacy | Techrights

  • Camerondoone

    Cameron go suck a dick you stupid cunt.

  • chris p bacon

    is porn really that harmful, i mean, is it?

  • wakeup

    This has nothing to do with Porn, first off get the dumb sheeple to accept crap like this, then before you know it everything that is no state propaganda will fall under this filtered list, one step closer to total censorship, I can see it now every Internet connection in the UK will in the future be forced through a Government Proxy, which only allows us to visit propaganda bullshit, wake up dumb sheeple.

  • The_Strawbear

    I don’t see why anyone has any issues with an opt in system. If indeed it is voluntary, then it is at heart a pointless piece of legislation designed only to appeal to the core of Tory voters ahead of the next election. It’s called shoring up your base support.

    It usually happens by issuing callings and writing policy which at heart is empty.

    An opt in system adds nothing to what is already available in the market place and it might help concerned and non-tech savvy parents easily block content (possibly) that they deem unreasonable for their children to see, as is their right.

    I’m against censorship in all its forms, but this doesn’t seem to be censorship, just yet another hollow Tory policy which doesn’t really alter anything for anyone.

    I don’t see any of you moaning about private filtering software which anyone can download to filter the internet for their kids.

    As ever, it pays to remain vigilant and make sure this isn’t the start of a creeping track to real censorship.

    But it also pays not to over-react like a bunch of mewling sub-normal kittens before you think about the real logic behind this legislation and the (lack of) real world ramifications which will result from its implementation (should it pass).

    If anything this policy should be an embarrassment for the Tories, given that it’s now a pointless, waterdown u-turn from their starting position.

    I think, given the harsh penalties which can result (unfairly) from torrenting a parent has every right to filter their kid’s internet access to exclude those sites. It’s different when the state does it, obviously.

  • beibao131313
  • guess who

    @rezident_user

    “As if the money you suck up on the dole constitutes an economic contribution, leech.”

    you are an ignorat muppet, the kind of dolt torys love, easily manipulated into following thier desired line of thought “set the masses on the masses to take thier attention away from the real perpetrators of this financial fuckup and crime.” i saw cameron on the news doing just that at a company when he was talking about people on bennefits.

    you will find, if you are capable of looking it up and understanding what you find, that ni contributions are paid for welfair. a breakdown of that is the health service, care for the dissabled and unemployment bennefit for those out of work in times of hardship, like the current economic climet caused by the plutocrats, corporate whores and other money leaches &c, sucking up all the money, like a never ending sponge of avarice and self concern.

    you accuse those who are unemployed of being leeches, when a labour government created a welfare system to care for us 99% when the 1%’s greed fucks things up so much the 99% have no way to earth a crust.

    if the government has not budgeted wizely with the money from ni contributions, that is not our fault, they’re the clowns running this circus. their job is to spend money wisely, save money (do you think they government doesn’t have billions set asside nice and safe for a rainy day?) and look after our greater interests, not just help corporate whores make money hand over fist.

    go away, you are an idiot.

  • guess who

    @no to pirates:

    pirates of the carribean you say. well, ummm, in case you haven’t realized it, hollywood has a long history of making money off of pirates backs. does the irony realy fail to hit you smack between the eyes and knock some sence into you?

  • Wakeup

    @guess who

    Totally correct my friend, they play the population off against each other

    remember this quote for a few months ago

    George Osborne asks “what is fair about a shift worker getting up in the morning and looking at the closed curtains of a neighbour who is “sleeping off a life on benefits”.

    that statement there is to create in fighting, so everybody who is unfortunate enough to be stuck on the dole, should get up at 6.30 am and open the curtains to appease the shift worker? totally pre meditated statement to create a divide and resentment between workers and those who are unemployed, and of course it i will work, all the sheep care about is corrie, xfactor and all the other trash designed to dumb everyone down.

    • guess who

      if only more people would pay attention to what is going on and make a decision on what they see for the truth, instead of listening to talking heads and politicos (who by definition are lying pond scum). it isn’t even as if they hide what they are doing, they play on the unthoughtfulness & fears of joe average.

      • Wakeup330

        Exactly! they do it all brazen in the open, because 99.9% of the population is oblivious and has their eyes wide shut, and cannot think for themselves, the brainwashing via the media and TV means they are beyond trying to talk to you about such matters! they look at you like your an Alien or something, but they will happily talk about Football, Soaps, Xfactor, you know all the pointless meaning less stuff, hats off to TPTB they have done such a good job turning everyone into Sheeple and herd mentality.

  • http://twitter.com/krozareq krozareq

    RL V for Vendetta. Where’s my mask?

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.