The UK High Court has ruled that UK ISPs are required to impede access to peer-to-peer file sharing websites regardless of where these sites are located, provided ISPs have actual knowledge of another person using their services to infringe copyright.

mgh, on 23 Apr 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

 

The UK High Court has ruled that UK ISPs are required to impede access to peer-to-peer file sharing websites regardless of where these sites are located, provided ISPs have actual knowledge of another person using their services to infringe copyright.

So thats that ship sunk before its even left port...

 

 

hold on...the latest i can find about this is from febuary...do you have a link of anything recent?

So thats that ship sunk before its even left port...

Not so. They'll have actual knowledge once a copyright holder brings it to their attention.

 

 

hold on...the latest i can find about this is from febuary...do you have a link of anything recent?

The case is EMI Records and others v British Sky Broadcasting and Others. The judgement was published today and reported in the Times newspaper.

So thats that ship sunk before its even left port...

Not so. They'll have actual knowledge once a copyright holder brings it to their attention.

 

Assuming of course the alleged infringer isn't using a vpn when using the site...

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I never said that it would be 100% effective, but is that a valid reason against it?

 

I never said that it would be 100% effective, but is that a valid reason against it?

 

Well, yeah. In so far as it is law that is demonstrably flawed.

 

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

All laws are demonstrably flawed - that's why we need police, courts, prisons etc. Perhaps we shouldn't have any laws?

All laws are demonstrably flawed - that's why we need police, courts, prisons etc. Perhaps we shouldn't have any laws?

 

 

I would suggest realistic laws are called for. Otherwise, it's just a waste of the taxpayers money. On the face of it, this is not realistic.

 

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

As much I have massive disdain and hate for companies trying to rip off consumers and massive profiteering, I can't quite bring myself to disrespecting creator/inventor/owner's rights. If they created it, they own it. If you don't like the price, don't buy it but that doesn't give you the right to pirate.

 

 

My main worry is that companies being greedy will start trampling on fair use - such as using a tune for your kids birthday and uploading it to youtube and getting sued for public broadcast (it has happened). Sheesh.

I would suggest realistic laws are called for. Otherwise, it's just a waste of the taxpayers money. On the face of it, this is not realistic.

 

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

What's your idea of a realistic law against piracy?

 

EDIT

 

The judge in the case having heard the evidence decided it is reasonably effective:

 

103.As to ease of circumvention, this is a factor in the proportionality of the order both as between the Claimants and the Defendants and as between the Claimants and the operators and users of the Websites. I would make three points in this respect.

 

104.The first is that I remain of the view that a blocking order may be justified even if it only prevents access by a minority of users: see 20C Fox v BT at [192]-[198].

 

105.The second is that efficacy depends on the precise form of the order. The orders I granted in Dramatico v Sky are likely to have been less easy to circumvent than the original order made in 20C Fox v BT (No 2): see Dramatico v Sky (No 2) at [13]. The same is true of the orders agreed in the present cases.

 

106.The third is that the evidence indicates that blocking orders are reasonably effective. The effect of the order made in Italy with regard to TPB referred to in 20C Fox v BT at [197] was a 73% reduction in audience accessing TPB in Italy and a 96% reduction in page views. The blocking order made in Italy in relation to KAT has had a similar effect. As for the effect of the orders made in England in relation to TPB, as at 19 December 2011, TPB was ranked by Alexa as number 43 in the UK, while as at 21 November 2012, its UK ranking had dropped to number 293.

 

 EMI Records Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others