It seems that the Pirate Party uK have decided its not worth spending any money to fight the BPI's claims in court.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20782529
At the beginning of December, the BPI wrote to Pirate Party UK leader Loz Kaye to request the proxy be shut down. Mr Kaye refused, prompting the music industry body to instruct its solicitors to contact the party's executive members individually to warn of possible legal action.
"We asked Pirate Party UK to remove the proxy because The Pirate Bay is an illegal site that is undermining the growth of legal digital music services," said BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor in a statement on Wednesday.
Despite attempts by elected members to resolve this situation, the law at present is clear and makes any decision to continue hosting the proxy untenable," said the party's lawyer, Frances Nash.
"This is not the outcome the party wanted; however, any challenge to this proposed action would make it financially impossible for the party to deal with other issues for which they actively campaign on a daily basis.
"The Pirate Party strongly believe that site blocking is both disproportionate and ineffective and will continue to lobby for digital rights and their wider manifesto."
Speaking to the BBC, Pirate Party UK leader Mr Kaye said taking on the BPI in court would have been "financially impossible", but said he was happy with his party's stance up to this point.
One has to ask if there anything the Pirate party will
make a stand on given that they have caved in at this early stage, it would have cost them little if anything to send one of their more legally minded members to act as their representative, all the talk of involving lawyers simply mounts up the costs to fight off such parasites of creativity as the BPI represents.
Unlike some countries the UK has no legally clear framework for making litigational claims of third party liability so any claims that the law is clear are factually incorrect.