ISPs Face Lawsuits After Failing to Block The Pirate Bay

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This ought to be good. Pass the popcorn please. :D

Following requests from a movie-focused anti-piracy outfit and the IFPI, Austria's largest ISPs were expected to block The Pirate Bay and other 'pirate' sites last week. But after deadlines passed without action, the entertainment groups are now preparing lawsuits to force the ISPs to cooperate.
Click to expand...
 
I just think its ridiculous that they can make demands to block other sites.

In the past, did companies sue the phone company (ISP) or the phone book (google) for allowing criminals to have phone service?

If they have a problem with the pirate bay, let them tackle it directly. If that is difficult, tough.
 
Oh and:

the article said:
“We have sympathy for rightsholders and we are in full support of the creative industries. However, we offer our customers access to the Internet and have no obligation or right to choose which content is accessed.”
Click to expand...

I know this is Australia, and not the U.S., but I wish they felt this weay about net Neutrality issues as well...
 
The ISP's job is to move bits around. If they want to make an Internet Police, fine. But, the ISP's shouldn't be liable for it. They just move things from one location to the next. When you get an internet connection, you get the whole internet. It's not what they think you should get; i.e. China.

Go after them in other ways.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041032305 said:
Oh and:



I know this is Australia, and not the U.S., but I wish they felt this weay about net Neutrality issues as well...
Click to expand...

Austria... no al.
 
ZenDragon said:
Austria... no al.
Click to expand...

494974d4a0892a7d821d37c98a03fe9e.jpg
 
This story has the wrong headline. It should be 'IFPI & entertainment industry attempts to coerce ISPs into blocking pirate sites fails".

The IFPI/VAP sent a letter asking for sites to be blocked without a legal reason and rightly, the ISPs declined (it was voluntary after all).
 
While you can make the emotional knee-jerk reaction that the lawsuit has merit... "Why didn't those evil colluding ISPs block them?"

The obvious answer is: By what authority and is it a good idea?

The slippery slope of allowing corporate interests to enforce what amounts to the force of LAW is ludicrous.

As stated above. IF a website is breaking the law, GO GET THE DAMN WEBSITE.

If you can't, then they aren't breaking exiting laws dramatically enough or causing enough harm to get the proper level of attention from the necessary authorities.

It's called pissing in the wind and nobody cares.
 
Advil said:
While you can make the emotional knee-jerk reaction that the lawsuit has merit... "Why didn't those evil colluding ISPs block them?"

The obvious answer is: By what authority and is it a good idea?

The slippery slope of allowing corporate interests to enforce what amounts to the force of LAW is ludicrous.

As stated above. IF a website is breaking the law, GO GET THE DAMN WEBSITE.

If you can't, then they aren't breaking exiting laws dramatically enough or causing enough harm to get the proper level of attention from the necessary authorities.

It's called pissing in the wind and nobody cares.
Click to expand...

Yea, but there is also a point where if the website is breaking the law, but not in the country that it is hosted in. So, you have them trying to regulate in the country where it is illegal. I'm worried that they will try and litigate through this. Many won't want to put in the money to defend and will just block it as the cheap, easy way out. :/
 
What find laughable is that they been trying to shutdown the pirate bay for years. It's like war on drugs. A battle that cant be won.
 
Ah, so they want to fine/demand legislation of IPS's for ALLOWING sites like TPB to come through to paying customers, but they don't give a shit about these ISP's THROTTLING or LIMITING throughput speeds for certain types of data to their paying customers, like Netflix streaming, and allowing these ISP's to extort money in order to fix the "problem".

Ps - Netflix is expanding in Europe to many countries including Austria, and I'm fully expecting the ISP's over there to pull the same bullshit throttling of Netflix streams as Verizon, ComCast, and many other ISP's have here in the US.
 
What find laughable is that they been trying to shutdown the pirate bay for years. It's like war on drugs. A battle that cant be won.
Click to expand...

The war on drugs can be won, but in order to win it you have to get people to stop wanting the drugs. no demand, war is over, Victory !
 
lcpiper said:
The war on drugs can be won, but in order to win it you have to get people to stop wanting the drugs. no demand, war is over, Victory !
Click to expand...

Which is why it can't be won. You'd have to kill a good percentage of the population to stop them from wanting drugs, and with each generation, you create more that want drugs. Besides, it's not actually a war on drugs. The congress and pharmaceutical companies WANT you to use drugs, it just wants you to use THEIR drugs. As usual, in America, it's all about the money.

They never learned from the 18th amendment. And those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. And this is exactly what we're seeing with the 'war on drugs'. It isn't going to work any better than the war on alcohol did; we're now 40 years into it, with absolutely nothing to show for it, drugs are more available than ever. I don't even use drugs, but I can tell you exactly where in my area I can go to buy some if I want. It's common knowledge, even the police know, it's like prostitution, they just move the 'vendors' around once in a while to make it seem like they're 'cleaning up the streets'. But nothing has changed at all in 40 years. NOTHING. And we've wasted how many billions of tax dollars on this war?
 
Which is why it can't be won. You'd have to kill a good percentage of the population to stop them from wanting drugs,
Click to expand...


Nooo, you don't have to kill anyone. You just have to get people to stop wanting to use illegal drugs. It really isn't as hard as you make it sound. I haven't used a controlled substance in 30 years. It's a choice and that's all it is. Offer people a better deal and the old one will disappear soon enough.
 
They never learned from the 18th amendment. And those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Click to expand...
This is also fallacious. just because no one learned anything from a previous occurrence in history does not mean that event is destined to be reenacted in the future. The conditions for reenactment must also be present and nothing says the conditions will be the same to allow the past to be relived.

Sorry, but that's the reality no matter how cute the saying sounds.
 
lcpiper said:
This is also fallacious. just because no one learned anything from a previous occurrence in history does not mean that event is destined to be reenacted in the future. The conditions for reenactment must also be present and nothing says the conditions will be the same to allow the past to be relived.

Sorry, but that's the reality no matter how cute the saying sounds.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's literal like that. I think it means that if similar circumstances arise, you could make the same mistake. Basically - you learn from your mistakes (and the mistakes of others). Sure, it won't be the same circumstances, but if a similar choice comes up and you make the same choice that ended badly for someone else, you might face similar results.

One guy blows himself up. Second guy didn't learn or understand why. He goes to do the same thing, and boom. He's gone too. Third guy looks and says "Well, I better not do that" and walks away. Simplified.

That's how I always took that saying, anyway.
 
And by the way, here is the actual quote from Santayana;
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual.. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it/
Click to expand...
 
lcpiper said:
And by the way, here is the actual quote from Santayana;
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual.. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it/
Since you figured that it was important to "correct" someone instead of listen to the point being made, I'll do the same.

Phrasing it as "here is the actual quote" is incorrect. It should have been stated as "here is the COMPLETE quote. Ur_Mom's usage was still in the correct spirit of the quote.

Nightfly's point is that when you make something illegal for no other reason than "I don't use it and I don't like it.. It must be bad/illegal" NEVER has worked out (in the USA).

This would be the same as some old congressman taking on the idea that "I don't use the internet, so other people can do without it as well. If we just ban it than it would solve all this piracy stuff."

Banning something without showing substantial harm to people other than the users is not only irresponsible, it's just plain immoral.

Back to the original point.
Blaming the ISPs for piracy is like blaming firearm manufacturers or dealers for gun deaths and distillers for drunk driving accidents.

If they want to stop piracy, they need to look at why it's happening.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
That Bank Robber just got away with the loot, lets sue the Highways Department for not stopping them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top