Help
We have a story today about yet another legal stoush involving The Pirate Bay, that notorious repository of links to download all sorts of copyright and non-copyright materials using BitTorrent.
Personally, if I were to start such a site and didn't want to be sued, I might have chosen a name that was less, well, obvious. And 'Pirate Bay' sounds like a Sea World attraction. But to each his own.
A similar case is playing itself out here in Australia, where iiNet is in court fighting a suit by industry body AFACT.
What does everybody here think? Should ISPs be responsible for policing what their users do? Should they be held liable when users use their network to visit Pirate Bay?
Page 1 of 1
Should ISPs block BitTorrent traffic? Pirate Bay lawsuit continues trend to hold ISPs liable
#1
David Braue 
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,076
- Joined: 29-August 08
- Gender:Male
Posted 13 October 2009 - 09:43 AM
#2 Guest_coaten_*
Posted 13 October 2009 - 10:34 AM
Abso-bloody-lutely not. The suggestion amounts to an exercise in prohibitionism. There's a legal precedent in which sellers of "smoking paraphernalia" are not held responsible for what their clients choose to smoke in these devices. Gun sellers are not held responsible for a person murdering another with a gun (unless, of course, they are a conspirator). On the same grounds, an ISP cannot be held to account simply because they provide a conduit through which their clients choose to pursue an illegal activity.
I would support blacklisting sites. That is, an ISP can and arguably should block access to a site known and certified by an appropriate law enforcement agency as a site that supplies or encourages the illegal sharing of files. However, this too has some grey areas, and enforcing a blacklisted site could be the thin end of a wedge that divides the user community unfairly into haves and have-nots.
But it would be an unrealistic expectation to think that an ISP can effectively monitor all the activity of its many clients without negatively impacting the user experience for its law-abiding clients. It would be like holding a speed-gun officer liable for all cars passing before his/her radar that are not only speeding but have a faulty exhaust as well. For that officer to effectively examine each car, all drivers would have to slow down. That, IMHO, is not acceptable.
I would support blacklisting sites. That is, an ISP can and arguably should block access to a site known and certified by an appropriate law enforcement agency as a site that supplies or encourages the illegal sharing of files. However, this too has some grey areas, and enforcing a blacklisted site could be the thin end of a wedge that divides the user community unfairly into haves and have-nots.
But it would be an unrealistic expectation to think that an ISP can effectively monitor all the activity of its many clients without negatively impacting the user experience for its law-abiding clients. It would be like holding a speed-gun officer liable for all cars passing before his/her radar that are not only speeding but have a faulty exhaust as well. For that officer to effectively examine each car, all drivers would have to slow down. That, IMHO, is not acceptable.
#3
Ken Gracey
- Wally's back!
-
- Group: Administrators
- Posts: 14,912
- Joined: 20-February 11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Victoria
- Interests:Computers & cars
Posted 13 October 2009 - 04:01 PM
It sounds pretty heavy handed, I personally have no pirated software on any of my macs, as the fines for such an offence for businesses, out weights the cost of any software illegally obtained many times over.
As for what ever anybody else does, thats really there choice, but for the service provider to monitor or restrict such activities sounds like over kill to me.
TL
As for what ever anybody else does, thats really there choice, but for the service provider to monitor or restrict such activities sounds like over kill to me.
TL
Come on 20K
Ken
Ken
#4
clinton1550
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,173
- Joined: 22-September 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Adelaide
Posted 13 October 2009 - 05:37 PM
Remember, there are legitimate uses for BitTorrent as well.
The internet should not be censored or filtered in any way.
The internet should not be censored or filtered in any way.
Steve Jobs is not dead, he's driving around in the desert with Elvis and Jesus in a gold plated Cadillac.
Unsanely Great | The Exastential Podcast | Twitter | Flickr | Google+
Unsanely Great | The Exastential Podcast | Twitter | Flickr | Google+
#5
pmoeser
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,799
- Joined: 03-January 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Brisbane Qld
- Interests:Things Mac related
Posted 13 October 2009 - 06:27 PM
QUOTE (clinton1550 @ Oct 13 2009, 05:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Remember, there are legitimate uses for BitTorrent as well.
The internet should not be censored or filtered in any way.
The internet should not be censored or filtered in any way.
I second that motion!
Also, the case involved people signing up for iinet and then engaging in illegal downloading then reporting it to see what iinet's reaction was.
I'm pretty sure in all other law enforcement that is illegal and shouldn't be allowed to be used in a court case.
iinet can probably sue them for breaching their contract by using the service to download illeagl content!
I thought I was wrong once...but I was mistaken
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is the day they start making vacuum cleaners." - Unknown
Pete
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is the day they start making vacuum cleaners." - Unknown
Pete
#6
Ken Gracey
- Wally's back!
-
- Group: Administrators
- Posts: 14,912
- Joined: 20-February 11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Victoria
- Interests:Computers & cars
Posted 13 October 2009 - 06:37 PM
Thats a very interesting slant on things.. but how many people actually read there internet agreement ? i am guessing not many, but does that make the user less liable? i guess not.
TL
TL
Come on 20K
Ken
Ken
#7
Molecule
- Mentor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 397
- Joined: 04-July 09
- Gender:Male
Posted 27 October 2009 - 12:18 AM
"Should ISPs block BitTorrent traffic?"
Hell. No.
They can block it over my dead body. P2P networks are possibly the most important thing on the Internet since..well, the Internet. Yes, they can be used for piracy. But they can be used for many, many legitimate purposes...many of which would be severely hindered by the absence of such networks (distribution of Free & Open Source Software, for example.). If ISPs start blocking them, I'll start my own ISP.
This whole thing is equivalent to banning kitchen knives because they can be used to stab people. Good luck doing anything more than very basic cooking without them!
Long live P2P
Molecule
Hell. No.
They can block it over my dead body. P2P networks are possibly the most important thing on the Internet since..well, the Internet. Yes, they can be used for piracy. But they can be used for many, many legitimate purposes...many of which would be severely hindered by the absence of such networks (distribution of Free & Open Source Software, for example.). If ISPs start blocking them, I'll start my own ISP.
This whole thing is equivalent to banning kitchen knives because they can be used to stab people. Good luck doing anything more than very basic cooking without them!
Long live P2P
Molecule
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” - Terry Pratchett
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1