The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs, court rules

[Gavman]

If Microsoft's website was to be censored then no we would have no problems it being linked to on the Conservative or Labour homepage

[topperfalkon]

Actually, if Microsoft had been blocked by ISPs I'd applaud a direct link to them from any website, regardless of whether it's a political party or not.

I also think there is a distinction in the way The Pirate Bay is considered 'commercial' and that Microsoft is commercial. TPB's 'main product' is free, completely free and open regardless of whether you click on ads or not. Most people don't even regularly see adverts on the internet anymore, and this is certainly true of any of my visits to TPB. On the other hand, Microsoft sells its 'main product' (and for exorbitant amounts too) and merely provides free support and a few free services to go along with the paid software. To call them direct equivalent is folly.

As for PPUK's stand on this, we oppose internet censorship and it's really as simple as that. In this case it's the first attempt to blanket censor a major site that has in the past been (maybe loosely) affiliated with us, it's probably the right time to make a stand. It's also, more importantly, following the actions taken by PPNL when the same thing happened over there.

Also, we might possibly need to thank the BPI for handing us the local elections votes that will inevitably come of this. We'll see what happens though.

[borgs8472]

As for issues of our website being blocked, I would need to see the order itself in order to make any real comment on the matter, however an order blocking the entire Pirate Party website would almost certainly be unlawful. Whether or not that would stop an ISP from blocking us interpreting the existing order is another matter. As for the legality of proxies etc., there's legal action going on at the moment between PPNL and BREIN over this precise issue, I will be watching that closely.

ORG think we've opened ourselves to being blocked. Right or not, I really think we should run the proxy on a different ip to the website.
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... -copyright

The UK’s Pirate Party has decided to mirror TPB here. By doing so, they not only lay themselves open to charges of copyright infringement, but also to IP blocking, which may well shut down their main website.

This is because both websites are currently at the same IP address 95.172.29.90. The court order would therefore require both websites to be censored. That of course would mean a court ordering the censorship of a political party: an unexpected outcome.

[cabalamat]

ORG think we've opened ourselves to being blocked. Right or not, I really think we should run the proxy on a different ip to the website.

We certainly need a backup plan. One possibility would be to leave the proxy where it is and host our main website on a new IP. If they block the DNS we register a new name and point it to our new IP address. That way we'll get the publicity without the hassle of having our site down.

[A-Tuin]

There are some changes currently taking place.
Firstly tpb.pirateparty.org.uk is getting its own IP address. Getting the site blocked due to incompetent attempts to block is an unacceptable risk.
Secondly, which may help reduce the "why are we promoting tpb" questions, we're not. We are trying to show how feeble attempts to censor these sites are, as such we're currently working on a generic proxy. Once the generic proxy has been tested and we're happy that it's working, users of the tpb one will be redirected to the generic proxy.

Interestingly the court order quote from the open rights group states "IP address blocking is generally only appropriate where the relevant website's IP address is not shared with anyone else. If it is shared, the result is likely to be overblocking ..."
I interpreted this initially as an IP address having multiple sites, then after seeing a different interpretation noted the "shared with anyone else" reached the same conclusion the open rights group did.
thepiratebay [tpb] have multiple sites on the same server, tpb.se/static.tpb.se and torrents.tpb.se and probably the .org redirect too.
We probably wouldn't be included in any court case to block the same way as PPNL were ex-parte to the original block, so there'd be no chance to argue the case before getting our political views censored too!

[topperfalkon]

Thanks for the clarification!

[A-Tuin]

I think I should add that I deliberately sat back and watched the fall out, mainly so I could make a decision without going back on anything I may have already said.

I know, I know, I'll never make a politician like that.

[borgs8472]

Firstly tpb.pirateparty.org.uk is getting its own IP address.

Good stuff

[Duke]

ORG think we've opened ourselves to being blocked. Right or not, I really think we should run the proxy on a different ip to the website.
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... -copyright

The UK’s Pirate Party has decided to mirror TPB here. By doing so, they not only lay themselves open to charges of copyright infringement, but also to IP blocking, which may well shut down their main website.

This is because both websites are currently at the same IP address 95.172.29.90. The court order would therefore require both websites to be censored. That of course would mean a court ordering the censorship of a political party: an unexpected outcome.

Without seeing the new orders themselves I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure Jim Killock is wrong there - if the orders are along the same lines as the Newzbin2 orders against BT, Sky and TalkTalk (which are publicly available) our entire website cannot be blocked under the order. Not that that would stop an ISP from doing so, but they could face both civil and criminal problems if they did that.

As for the Party being open to charges of copyright infringement, I am obviously no expert but am cautiously happy that the Party isn't liable for any sort of copyright infringement via that proxy. However, I will be discussing this further with the Powers that Be.

One interesting paragraph from the first TPB judgment that I either missed a the time or have forgotten about:

Mr Sehested [from MarkMonitor, and the BPI's witness] explains that since 2007 MarkMonitor has monitored the activities of P2P users in the UK for the IFPI. For this purpose the IFPI have supplied MarkMonitor with sample lists of copyright-protected record label repertoire, selected on the basis of the UK Singles and Album charts. As at 20 December 2011, the list comprised 15,000 titles. MarkMonitor monitors P2P networks to ascertain the number of instances where titles on the list are made available to, and downloaded by, P2P users via the Defendants [the 6 ISPs]. This information has been utilised for the purpose of providing notifications to the Defendants of instances where their services have been used for the illegal downloading of works of the BPI's members. By 21 November 2011, some 3,299,337 such instances had been identified.

This gives you an indication of the scale of monitoring that the IFPI is carrying out on P2P networks.

[glambert]

As for the Party being open to charges of copyright infringement, I am obviously no expert but am cautiously happy that the Party isn't liable for any sort of copyright infringement via that proxy. However, I will be discussing this further with the Powers that Be.

Be careful, because if the party is liable, being taken to court, being found guilty or not guilty, could prove very, very expensive. If it does, just make sure you get a decent amount of publicity over it; could work out to be in your favour if they did block the website, in a weird sort of way.

[topperfalkon]

I don't think it would help if they blocked the site, nor would it help if we got taken to court. I think the main thing it would do is reinforce the idea held by many who don't support the Party that we're only in it for the free stuff and we're a bunch of criminal miscreants.

I honestly don't see that being helpful promotion for us.

[b8birmingham]

I have an idea if they block the site or the proxy can you (we ?) not make another proxy back to the site and proxy ? Also will it not just be a case of a small change to the law to make it illegal to... proxy hot link or anything to a site that is under a court order block because in essence it is making a mockery of the British Courts.

The situation is a joke thepiratebay is ten a penny one only has to choose from the multiple other options on another popular site torrentz and if that fails google !

[topperfalkon]

Well, to my knowledge Virgin Media or any other ISP are under no obligation to block proxies to TPB, as the court order was only served on the site itself. To block PPUK entirely, another court order would presumably have to be served. If that were to happen we would fight any attempt to do so. Given that our primary role is as a political party it would be difficult for a court to justify a block. I'm not an expert on law though, so I could be wrong here.

You are right though, this all makes our legal system look particularly stupid.

[b8birmingham]

I know how this situation is close to all our hearts BUT how can you say to people vote for me I will unblock the pirate bay ? Also i know that virgin are under no obligation (just as well because we all know how robust virgin are at implementing these "orders") that's why i said "small change to the law".

[topperfalkon]

We're not seeking votes on the basis of The Pirate Bay. We're seeking votes on the basis of our policies, such as copyright reform and the abolition of drug patents that stop generic drugs being made. We also campaign to protect free speech in our society and the right to privacy.

As for Virgin, they wouldn't block us unless there's a new court order against us, because it would land them in hot water. If court action is taken against us to seek a block, then we'll fight it.

[Duke]

Well, to my knowledge Virgin Media or any other ISP are under no obligation to block proxies to TPB, as the court order was only served on the site itself. To block PPUK entirely, another court order would presumably have to be served.

If the order is anything like the previous orders against Newzbin2, the orders were served on the ISPs, about the site. It will read something along the lines of blocking the site, "its domains and sub-domains ... and any other IP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the ... website." However, they will probably have to be notified, in writing, by the BPI, of any new IP or URL that they want to add to the list. That means that all the BPI would have to do to get PPUk's proxy blocked would be to send a letter to the ISPs with the URL added to the list.

To block the entire site would need a new order (as the website's sole or predominant purpose isn't to enable access to the site) and that would almost certainly be illegal. However that doesn't mean that, were PPUK's IP/URL added to the list, an ISP wouldn't accidentally over-block, and then we'd have to complain to the ISP.

[topperfalkon]

Okay, that's fair enough. I don't really have time at the moment to delve into the actual court-order to see what the exact provisions were, so we're probably safer assuming that's the case.

[borgs8472]

aramoro, please make it clear when you arguing with the perceived party line vs individuals as it becomes very hard to follow what argument you might be trying to make at any given time.

[aramoro]

It's always Party line, that's why I ask my questions in 'Questions for the Party' and in this topic I was talking about the parties liability with association to The Pirate Bay. Though I will reply directly to people who say things just to make it extra confusing. Not sure what it has to do with this topic though, I barely remember posting in it.

I would take issue with using the word 'perceived', If you're punching someone in the face whilst saying 'I'm not punching you in the face' , you are still punching them in the face, it's not their perception of events which tells them that. It's your relentless fist.

[borgs8472]

^ ^
On that point, there a lot of official statements (e.g press releases) and unofficial ones (e.g. forum communications) and fewer that you might expect official policies. I and most other activists work according to a large amount of policy that has been determined via all three of these sources, resulting in much of it being subjective with large scope for drawing conclusions into new areas.

Since activists by definition know they will be supported or restrained by their peers on most actions, this state of affairs largely regulates itself. Without similar group of critics, likewise building consistency of criticism, scepticism and so forth, the process of creating a response can be unnecessarily ad hoc and inconsistent, potential leading to unproductive conversations.

That's why I ask to state the policies you have inferred. I have stated at the very beginning of this thread that there is an indeterminate change in policy and that I don't know what our policy is on supporting pirate bay content at the moment.

Also, sorry for dredging this up, the comment in question was at the bottom of my 'page 1', I thought it was the most recent comment which it wasn't.