tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post1335308612639251380..comments2024-03-18T09:13:19.346+00:00Comments on panGloss: (More) Trouble At T'Billpanglosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-89453096427911751532010-03-05T19:16:36.649+00:002010-03-05T19:16:36.649+00:00"@teve I'm afraid since you clearly haven..."@teve I'm afraid since you clearly haven't bothered to read my reply and continue to be abusive (and possibly libellous) I have no choice but to ban you from commenting further,panglosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-14453630729904092582010-03-05T17:39:16.429+00:002010-03-05T17:39:16.429+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-74664807450308170412010-03-05T13:52:12.742+00:002010-03-05T13:52:12.742+00:00@Steve The BBC News site when reporting on copyrig...@Steve The BBC News site when reporting on copyright, piracy stories etc frequently provides a link to eg the Pirate Bay, You Tube etc. These may well qualify under the 2(a) test. The BBC site is then the location via which copyright infringing content may be accessed. It is hard to see what if any "reasonable steps"(2(c)) the BBC takes to prevent infringement - they usually state only that they do not have legal liability for external links. I hope this clarifies my analysis.<br /><br />By the way abusive language in your own comments does little to convince me that your own judgment is professional, objective and unclouded by partisan agendas. People, glass houses, etc.<br /><br />Incidentally also for your information; the Lib Dems themselves have now said this amendment is not aimed at torrent sites like the PIrate Bay as you asserted to be obvious, but mainly at foreign-located hosting services, the so-called cyber-lockers.panglosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-45074506783708668052010-03-05T13:38:12.631+00:002010-03-05T13:38:12.631+00:00Lilian, you must decide whether you are a copyrigh...Lilian, you must decide whether you are a copyright activist, or a dispassionate legal expert. Your activism seems to have clouded your judgment.<br /><br />2(a) clearly states that to be blocked, a Judge must be satisfied that<br /><b> a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright</b><br /><br />Clearly the BBC is not at risk from this amendment. YouTube can argue it takes steps to filter copyright material 2(c) too.<br /><br />Your analysis is flat out wrong. Are you saying these things just to get in the papers?Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-80855319169124013852010-03-04T16:07:40.364+00:002010-03-04T16:07:40.364+00:00Actually Steve/Anon, I'm afraid it's you w...Actually Steve/Anon, I'm afraid it's you who hasn't read the bill/amendment properly. This amendment is far far wider than "just "about the Pirate Bay. It refers to blocking sites "via" which infringing content can be accesed; that includes Google, Yahoo, the BBC and many many other sites. It also applies to host sites which host infringing content even if they have no control over it or knowledge. It is basically, therefore, unworkably wide.panglosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-67940735939192950872010-03-04T15:59:21.841+00:002010-03-04T15:59:21.841+00:00I don't think you've read the amendment, F...I don't think you've read the amendment, Frank.<br /><br /><br />It's designed to block PirateBay. No ISP is going to feel intimidated by this, there is no ambiguity at all. <br /><br /><br />There is no green light for whiners if you read the whole bill. Reading it will answer your questions. There are penalties for copyright holders who waste time with frivolous or false requests - they have to pay costs of the case. These concessions were inserted last week.<br /><br />PirateBay is a parasitic entity, it pays nothing back to creators, it isn't innovative, it's just a leech on independent artists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-2309729544092453022010-03-04T12:42:19.376+00:002010-03-04T12:42:19.376+00:00Well, who knows who owns copyright? Does a site ow...Well, who knows who owns copyright? Does a site owner not only have to judge if material is copyright, but find out *who* owns copyright? I can tell you, this isn't always as easy as it sounds. And how is a site owner owner to judge? Open every item? What about encrypted items? If a P2P enabler carries encrypted material, should they automatically assume it all infringes copyright? But this isn't really about hosts, it's about ISPs - so all ISPs should assume anything indicated to them, by anybody, is copyright material being used without permission, and should therefore block? Just like that?<br /><br />it will chill - ISPs will err on the side of caution. They'll block as soon as anyone complains. Nothign will ever come to court. It's a green light for whiners.FrankFisherhttp://www.frankfisher.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-81987867388483270452010-03-04T11:55:44.112+00:002010-03-04T11:55:44.112+00:00"it's only the blocked site itself which ..."it's only the blocked site itself which really knows if it is a haven for copyright infringement or not, not the ISP. "<br /><br />Don't be daft. Are you saying there's any ambiguity in the case of The Pirate Bay?Stevenoreply@blogger.com