Is Assisting With Assisting With Assisting With Potential Copyright Infringement Illegal?
from the perhaps-in-Sweden dept
With a Swedish court trying to shut down The Pirate Bay by forcing what it thought was the site's main ISP to block it, many folks are talking about how quickly the site came back, and the site's rather defiant response to the attempt. There's also some buzz about the fact that an antivirus company, Avast, has started blocking The Pirate Bay as being "malicious." While Avast defends the decision, it certainly makes me question Avast's competence as a security company (Update: Avast now says it was a false positive and has been fixed -- but that wasn't what the company said originally). It should be looking at actual malicious behavior -- not just blocking a site that you could go to where you might possibly if you did something dumb get some malicious files on your computer. Why not just do what a security product is supposed to do and stop the actual maliciousness from occurring, rather than blocking the entire site?But, more to the point, this highlights one of the slippery slope problems with The Pirate Bay ruling and others. When you start to blame the tools for the problem, where do you stop? Peter Sunde made this point with a short Twitter message about the order against the ISP (I think that's what it's about):
It's now decided that Assisting with assisting with assisting of eventual copyright infringement is a crime.Indeed. This is the problem when you allow for some sort of "inducement" or "contributory copyright infringement" standard. Where do you stop? The Pirate Bay itself doesn't infringe on copyrights. It's the users who do. But, the courts blamed The Pirate Bay. And when that didn't work, it went after the site's ISP, who is so tangentially related to the actual infringement that it's ridiculous to put the burden on it. Who's next? Already we have the entertainment industry trying to get individual ISPs to block their customers from The Pirate Bay. Basically, it seems like anyone in the chain, no matter how loosely connected can now get pulled into this as potentially violating copyright law.
Update: A separate point raised in the comments: apparently the court only told the ISP to block access to a small list of specific content, but without being able to do that, it just blocked the whole site.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, inducement
Companies: the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linked
Lawyers are on their way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update - Avast blocking = false positive
(eventual link = http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=48004.msg405156#msg405156)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
So basically it's back to people don't kill people, guns kill people?
Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'donell fat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...Assisting with assisting with assisting of eventual copyright infringement is a crime"
Governments of the world --- of by and for the corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ISP is partly to blame for the poor decision
If the court would have known it would probably have needed to weigh different interests against each other much more carefully, and I think that it's likely that the outcome in that case would have been different. So to a large degree this decision is due to the - I don't hesitate to say - lame defense of the ISP.
By the way, the court phrased the decision in terms of assisting the infringements done by the users of the Pirate Bay, which I guess is a way to try to get around this long chain of A assists B who assists C and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ISP is partly to blame for the poor decision
Source? Based on the links provided by TD, it seems clear that the court told the ISP to explicitly stop servicing TPB.
"An executive with Black Internet told Swedish newspaper SvD that the court informed the company that it would either shut off The Pirate Bay or face penalties. The founders of The Pirate Bay were found guilty of copyright violations last April."
From...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10316037-93.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag =2547-1_3-0-20
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that either you're wrong or TechDirt and CNet are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The ISP is partly to blame for the poor decision
My source is the court protocol itself where it clearly says what I said. Since it's not possible for an ISP to block certain works the implication is of course that the ISP is forced to shut down all access. So if you're talking about the implication then TechDirt and CNet are correct, if you're talking about the court's words and what it actually ordered then I am correct.
Reading through the decision I actually just found an interesting thing: apparently both the record companies and the movie companies demanded that the ISP is ordered not to "assist making available" the copyrighted works in their catalogs or those relevant to the case. However, the court's order forbids the ISP to "make available" the works. Notice the absence of the word "assist" in the latter case.
The mere notion that an ISP makes copyrighted works available by providing network access seems really strange. Even more so when these words come from a Swedish low court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The ISP is partly to blame for the poor decision
Assuming that the court protocol says what you say it says, then I would say that TechDirt and CNet are wrong. Or, in the very least, mischaracterizing the court ruling. Yes, ordering something that has the effect of shutting off service and hiding behind the "but we didn't tell you to shut off service" excuse is an underhanded tactic, but there's still an distinction between the two verdicts. One means the court is dangerously oppresive. The other means it's dangerously ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ISP is partly to blame for the poor decision
... supposition, supposition, supposition ...
Conclusion: "decision is due to ... lame defense of the ISP."
= Logic FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The ISP is partly to blame for the poor decision
In terms of responsability however I don't think the court goes without blame. Actually I fully agree to what Hulser said above: "One [verdict] means the court is dangerously oppressive. The other means it's dangerously ignorant."
In any case this sure has stirred a lot of healthy debate. I think many are still in shock that this can happen in our country. Not the least after all the public debate about net neutrality and the principle of "mere conduit" etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like MCarthyism
According to Alistair Cook it was exactly this kind of attempt to incriminate ever more remotely linked associates that turned the tide against McCarthyism in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the buck stops .... uh .... over there --->
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the buck stops .... uh .... over there --->
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should you go after the parents for giving birth to someone who may one day allegedly commit a copyright violation?
Amazing what political back scratching can accomplish, it can ramrod through the most illogical crap imaginable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
assisting
You are now an accomplice to copyright, because you assisted in making it happen by hosting a site which allowed for links to the pirate bay, which can be used to download torrent files, which can be used to perform copyright infringement.
You're guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I spent months of time
and millions of dollars
to close down The Pirate Bay
and all I'll get
is this
beautiful t-shirt!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upgrading the 'terror alert' against freedom
Much in the way the US approached the (unending wasteful War on Drugs)countries such as Britain are going on the offensive http://cultureghost.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4112 joining other EU countries against the individual sharer. Suits against IsoHunt, TBP and others attack the trackers and in a further slap at TPB their host is served a summarily shuts them down. The upcoming months will shape how individuals will be able to share files and my hope is that forums such as this will serve as a soapbox and educate individuals on how to protect themselves. Hopefully furthering that a service such as a VPN will enhance their ability to avoid packet shaping ISP's snooping powers that be and enhance their own individual freedom through anonymity while on the net. Remember stay away from leaky PPTP which is more of a 'Political Statement' http://bit.ly/GXaHM and push for one using an OpenVPN client.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox cut out the middleman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox cut out the middleman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Balance says TPB boys are going to get the MOAT (mother of all tweaks). They are idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Court only allowed to consider the material presented by the parties
This means that even if the court had doubts regarding whether it is possible for an ISP to block specific works it's not up to the court to investigate this further but rather for the affected parties to bring this up, which the ISP clearly failed to do in this case.
Of course one can still argue that the court must have been quite ignorant since this almost seems like common knowledge, but in any case it's seems the fault of this strange decision is mostly to be blamed on the ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]