Pirate Bay founders convicted

[Larry Latourneau]

link

here

[Tnemeh]

Crap.

For me, most of the time, foreign-country based webpages that sell stuff difficult to find in my country don't accept foreign cards (like mine) and make international shipping a living hell, if possible at all.

I don't mourn the possibility of losing movies for download, movies I can usually find here (since I'm of the idea that if you like something, buying the original version encourages the production of similar stuff), but other products that aren't so easy to find, well... I don't like these news.

[Guy Humual]

While I don't support file sharing I think this ruling was potentially dangerous. The fact of the matter is that this web site wasn't hosting anything and were only providing a service . . .

[Larry Latourneau]

Larry Latourneau wrote:

link

here

What I found odd was that they were convicted, yet their Web-site was allowed to stay up...unsure what the message there was.

[Charles Evans 25]

Edited:

Guy Humual wrote:

While I don't support file sharing I think this ruling was potentially dangerous. The fact of the matter is that this web site wasn't hosting anything and were only providing a service . . .

Is the man in the local pub who gives (the generic) you the name and address of a hitman (the generic) you can hire to bump off (the generic) your wealthy wife 'only providing a service', or has he assisted (the generic) you to carry out a criminal act?

If piracy is a crime, it seems logical to me to rule that assisting someone to commit piracy is also crime.

[Paul Watson]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

While I don't support file sharing I think this ruling was potentially dangerous. The fact of the matter is that this web site wasn't hosting anything and were only providing a service . . .

Is the man in the local pub who gives (the generic) you the name and address of a hitman (the generic) you can hire to bump off (the generic) your wealthy wife 'only providing a service', or has he conspired with (the generic) you to carry out a criminal act?

If piracy is a crime, it seems logical to me to rule that conspiring to commit piracy is also crime.

Ah, but is the barman who owns the bar the generic hitman talks to the generic you in guilty? Because as I understood it, users put links up, not the owners of Pirate Bay. They did not act against the linkers, but is inaction a crime?

[Charles Evans 25]

Paul Watson wrote:

Ah, but is the barman who owns the bar the generic hitman talks to the generic you in guilty? Because as I understood it, users put links up, not the owners of Pirate Bay. They did not act against the linkers, but is inaction a crime?

In some countries, I suspect, yes.

Edit:
It might be possible to argue that the owners of the website - if either exceptionally careless or complete and utter twits - had no knowledge of what was going on on that website, but I gather that the owners of Pirate Bay are neither careless nor twits.

[Tnemeh]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Ah, but is the barman who owns the bar the generic hitman talks to the generic you in guilty? Because as I understood it, users put links up, not the owners of Pirate Bay. They did not act against the linkers, but is inaction a crime?

In some countries, I suspect, yes.

What I found funny is that they basically arrested the barman but let the hitman go free. And let the barman give advice freely anyway. Twisted logic, as pointed before.

[David Fryer]

I think it would be ironic and hilariously appropriate if they made them walk the plank.

[Charles Evans 25]

Tnemeh wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Ah, but is the barman who owns the bar the generic hitman talks to the generic you in guilty? Because as I understood it, users put links up, not the owners of Pirate Bay. They did not act against the linkers, but is inaction a crime?

In some countries, I suspect, yes.

What I found funny is that they basically arrested the barman but let the hitman go free. And let the barman give advice freely anyway. Twisted logic, as pointed before.

Twisted logic would seem to me to be arguing that because there are people out there who are currently on the run from war-crimes charges, that anyone who picks your pocket in the street should not be found guilty or punished.

Tragedy is that the the pick-pocket is caught, whilst the war-criminal remains on the run.

Edit:
I'm sorry about the exaggeration, but I'm trying to make the point that just because the 'bigger fish' remain uncaught, it doesn't mean that the smaller fry should be let off the hook.

[David Fryer]

I think the argument could be made that such a site serves no legal purpose. That being said, the really ridiculous thing is that the site is still operating, despite the conviction.

[Charles Evans 25]

(edited)
Apologies if I have ruffled anybody's feathers. I recognise that my position is perhaps a little too absolute on this topic for productive discussion, and I think I had probably best leave this thread alone.

[Guy Humual]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Is the man in the local pub who gives you the name and address of a hitman you can hire to bump off your wealthy wife 'only providing a service', or has he assisted you to carry out a criminal act?

If piracy is a crime, it seems logical to me to rule that assisting someone to commit piracy is also crime.

The crime in this analogy seems to be owning the bar. The bar (basically the website in this analogy) is used by people to plan the crimes which then effectively take place outside of the bar (on the internet). Basically because the owner of the bar isn't walking around and insuring that all his patrons aren't planing in his bar to commit crimes he is now guilty of the very crime his patrons are accused off (accused but not convicted off). Basically the fellow that hires the hitman and the hitman himself walk away Scot free while the owner of the bar goes to jail.

But I'm not a lawyer and there might be problems with our little analogy here. But this is my understanding and I don't like the sounds of this ruling.

[Callous Jack]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

I'm sorry about the exaggeration, but I'm trying to make the point that just because the 'bigger fish' remain uncaught, it doesn't mean that the smaller fry should be let off the hook.

In the end, whether you're hosting the site or using it for illegal means, you should have to pay the price.

[Tnemeh]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Apologies if I have ruffled feathers. I think I had probably best leave this thread alone.

Oh, no, please. If everybody would agree with me, this world would be boring. As long as we keep it cool and reasonable, I'd rather have interesting points of view against mine.

[Taliesin Hoyle]

Warner Brothers, Columbia, Twentieth Century Fox, Sony BMG, and EMI need the money, so they can continue to pay lawyers, and research new rootkits.

[Courtney!]

I feel like an assessment of intent could be appropriate here. The site is called "Pirate Bay," after all. If the hypothetical bar had a catchy name like "In The Crosshairs" or "Dead Wives Tell No Tales," and was known as the go-to place for dirty deeds done cheap, then, yeah, I kinda think we could infer a certain amount of complicity on the part of the management.

I do agree, though, this merits watching, because, absent of analysis of intent, the conclusions here are pretty grim for anyone wanting to host a website. It also rather explains the cracking down on forum/chat rules in general; no one wants to be prosecuted for some ignorant comment a random flamer made on one's site.

And I do have sympathy for those unable to legally obtain materials. I know someone who has traveled to other nations and been unable to find anything but pirated copies of DVDs. His solution? Destroy them after viewing, and think of it as a movie rental. :) Doubt that kind of rationale would jibe with the folks pressing the charges against Pirate Bay, tho.

[Sebastian]

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:

Warner Brothers, Columbia, Twentieth Century Fox, Sony BMG, and EMI need the money, so they can continue to pay lawyers, and research new rootkits.

Woo-hoo! Keep paying the lawyers!!!

...

I mean...uh...damn lawyers...blood-sucking bastards...

(woo-hoo!)

;-)

[Andrew Turner]

Courtney! wrote:

...I know someone who has traveled to other nations and been unable to find anything but pirated copies of DVDs...

Ahh, like virtually everywhere in Southwest Asia and the Middle East...

[Courtney!]

Andrew Turner wrote:

Courtney! wrote:

...I know someone who has traveled to other nations and been unable to find anything but pirated copies of DVDs...

Ahh, like virtually everywhere in Southwest Asia and the Middle East...

*nodnod* Yes, so much like those places, you might, in fact, say they are those places...:)