8 ms·

Is organizing the violation of copyright laws political speech, or do you mean something else by "political reasons"?

by andreyf 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago
I made no mention of "political speech". Preventing people from communicating amongst themselves is a political action.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
venomsnake 11y ago
Can you explain how giving a checksum of a file is violation of copyright?
- rtpg 11y ago
  Just thought of this, but isn't it conspiracy? Kind of the only way to arrest someone before doing something.
  - andreyf 11y ago
    Good question. I don't know. I realize MPAA lawyers don't agree, but a crime like "conspiracy to enable people watch movies for free" seems like it isn't exactly the best thing to spend our limited judicial resources prosecuting, especially since it's been trivial to pirate movies for ages and the industry is still making billions.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Arresting people without them having committed a crime is generally considered a Bad Thing.
    - rtpg 11y ago
      Right, which is why planning to commit a crime is now a crime as well (think price fixing). You can stop people before harm is actually done (with harm==results of illegal action)
      - mindslight 11y ago
        Redefining "crime" to include "precrime" is generally considered a Bad Thing also. A law being on the books does not mean it is just or wise.
- andreyf 11y ago
  Good question. It might be considered a derivative work, but I think that would be a new interpretation of that phrase. Big-picture answer is that most people who write and interpret laws do not know what SHA-1 is, so current laws might not cover TPB with respect to copyright law. It might also be that technology makes some laws silly or at least much harder to enforce, and copyright laws might be one such example. IANAL, but here's one argument against TPB: a checksum of a "controlled file" seems to me akin to the code name of a "controlled substance". If a guy tells you that if you want heroin, you should ask around for "wombats", and then you go ask around for "wombats" and buy some heroin, did the dude that told you the code name do something illegal? Now what if he was just a robot that repeated what he heard, and gathered reviews? "I heard heroin is called wombat, and 100 people are happy with that information". TPB does a little more than that (monitor the number of seeders / leechers, which is integral to prevent fake torrents being submitted), and makes quite a pretty penny off of their services, as well.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Because laws are administered by humans, who are not blind to intent. Laws are not software. They are not run like software. This is one of the reasons why.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Well the intent is people to share files. Not to commit copyright infringement.
    - MattRL 11y ago
      For torrenting generally, for the 'Pirate Bay'?
    - mindslight 11y ago
      You're setting up a losing battle by buying into the broken framework. "Sharing" "copyrighted" files is currently illegal throughout the empire, period. But simultaneously, marijuana incorporation only became a thing because of a dedicated community flouting the law long enough for the disinterested majority to see the ridiculousness of it.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Downvoting me doesn't change any laws.
- cperciva 11y ago
  Intent matters. Driving a taxi is legal, and telling people where to find a bank is legal, but if you start advertising a "bank robber target selection and getaway service" then you'll end up being thrown in jail for bank robbery, because you were knowingly assisting in the crime even though your actions taken in isolation were entirely legal. Similarly, providing someone with a checksum of a file is not copyright infringement in itself, but it becomes illegal when you do it with the intent of assisting copyright infringement.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    To use your analogy TPB are literally only providing a taxi service though, they don't know or care if you're going to the bank and if you're making a deposit, recovering stolen property or robbing it. In USA format shifting is allowed, downloading a format shifted copy of media is logically equivalent and morally probably slightly superior (less time/energy waste?). Don't know if that line of reasoning had been tested yet? There are countries where it is not a tort to download nor upload what would otherwise be considered copyright material. In short TPB does nothing in terms of contributory infringement that other indexing sites (Google, Bing, etc) don't do. There behaviour is the same no matter your intent; do you have a more convincing argument that accounts for common carrier protections and explains why of I get a work using a link from Google it's not infringing but getting one from TPB makes it tortuous?
    - vinceguidry 11y ago
      > In short TPB does nothing in terms of contributory infringement that other indexing sites (Google, Bing, etc) don't do. That is an argument that you are making, not a foregone conclusion. First off, the branding matters when it comes to intent. The name, "The Pirate Bay" leaves it pretty clear what they're expecting you to do with the site. Also, there's the fact that Google and other search engines are responsive to DMCA requests, TPB is not. Finally, there's the political positions of the organization running the site. Their service is much closer to cperciva's analogy than it is to a normal search engine.
  - yason 11y ago
- belorn 11y ago
  While the question is interesting from a law theory perspective, the pirate bay was actually never charged for being in violation of copyright. The court decision referenced a rather obscure law which was intended to address organize crime. The law basically says that if a service is primarily used for illegal purposes, then running that service is illegal under current assisting laws. The intention of the law makers was to give the police the ability to shut down biker bars that was used as headquarters, without the normal procedure of having to find tax crimes or some other excuse to shut it down. The prosecutor in the pirate bay case provided a screenshot of the top 100 shared file list and said that this proved that the primary usage of the site was copyright infringement. The defense argued that you could not determine this, using the long tail argument. The court went with the prosecutors argument and so did the appeal court.
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    What is "the long tail argument"? That the service was provided for legitimate means but most people in the long tail use it for illegal means?
    - rahimnathwani 11y ago
      Even if the top 100 moat popular torrents do infringe on copyrights, the many less popular torrents (the long tail) may outnumber them in downloads etc.
      - belorn 11y ago
        Yep. If someone for example had access to amazon top 100 sold books, the information one could derive from it would be surprisingly little. You could not determine what genre is most popularly sold, what the profit margins are in the book market, or who the target audience generally are.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cbd1984 11y ago
  You can't break the law through a clever loophole. Or, well, you can for a while, but eventually a judge will wake up and see what you're doing and apply the law you're breaking to you, even if you think you're strictly within its boundaries. If you want to do something that's currently illegal, CHANGE THE LAWS.
mbrutsch 11y ago
Many of us believe it is, yes.

Is organizing the violation of copyright laws political speech, or do you mean something else by "political reasons"?

by andreyf 11y ago

Is organizing the violation of copyright laws political speech, or do you mean something else by "political reasons"?

mindslight 11y ago

I made no mention of "political speech". Preventing people from communicating amongst themselves is a political action.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

venomsnake 11y ago

Can you explain how giving a checksum of a file is violation of copyright?

rtpg 11y ago
Just thought of this, but isn't it conspiracy? Kind of the only way to arrest someone before doing something.
- andreyf 11y ago
  Good question. I don't know. I realize MPAA lawyers don't agree, but a crime like "conspiracy to enable people watch movies for free" seems like it isn't exactly the best thing to spend our limited judicial resources prosecuting, especially since it's been trivial to pirate movies for ages and the industry is still making billions.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Arresting people without them having committed a crime is generally considered a Bad Thing.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    Right, which is why planning to commit a crime is now a crime as well (think price fixing). You can stop people before harm is actually done (with harm==results of illegal action)
    - mindslight 11y ago
      Redefining "crime" to include "precrime" is generally considered a Bad Thing also. A law being on the books does not mean it is just or wise.
andreyf 11y ago
Good question. It might be considered a derivative work, but I think that would be a new interpretation of that phrase. Big-picture answer is that most people who write and interpret laws do not know what SHA-1 is, so current laws might not cover TPB with respect to copyright law. It might also be that technology makes some laws silly or at least much harder to enforce, and copyright laws might be one such example. IANAL, but here's one argument against TPB: a checksum of a "controlled file" seems to me akin to the code name of a "controlled substance". If a guy tells you that if you want heroin, you should ask around for "wombats", and then you go ask around for "wombats" and buy some heroin, did the dude that told you the code name do something illegal? Now what if he was just a robot that repeated what he heard, and gathered reviews? "I heard heroin is called wombat, and 100 people are happy with that information". TPB does a little more than that (monitor the number of seeders / leechers, which is integral to prevent fake torrents being submitted), and makes quite a pretty penny off of their services, as well.
cbd1984 11y ago
Because laws are administered by humans, who are not blind to intent. Laws are not software. They are not run like software. This is one of the reasons why.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Well the intent is people to share files. Not to commit copyright infringement.
  - MattRL 11y ago
    For torrenting generally, for the 'Pirate Bay'?
  - mindslight 11y ago
    You're setting up a losing battle by buying into the broken framework. "Sharing" "copyrighted" files is currently illegal throughout the empire, period. But simultaneously, marijuana incorporation only became a thing because of a dedicated community flouting the law long enough for the disinterested majority to see the ridiculousness of it.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Downvoting me doesn't change any laws.
cperciva 11y ago
Intent matters. Driving a taxi is legal, and telling people where to find a bank is legal, but if you start advertising a "bank robber target selection and getaway service" then you'll end up being thrown in jail for bank robbery, because you were knowingly assisting in the crime even though your actions taken in isolation were entirely legal. Similarly, providing someone with a checksum of a file is not copyright infringement in itself, but it becomes illegal when you do it with the intent of assisting copyright infringement.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  To use your analogy TPB are literally only providing a taxi service though, they don't know or care if you're going to the bank and if you're making a deposit, recovering stolen property or robbing it. In USA format shifting is allowed, downloading a format shifted copy of media is logically equivalent and morally probably slightly superior (less time/energy waste?). Don't know if that line of reasoning had been tested yet? There are countries where it is not a tort to download nor upload what would otherwise be considered copyright material. In short TPB does nothing in terms of contributory infringement that other indexing sites (Google, Bing, etc) don't do. There behaviour is the same no matter your intent; do you have a more convincing argument that accounts for common carrier protections and explains why of I get a work using a link from Google it's not infringing but getting one from TPB makes it tortuous?
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    > In short TPB does nothing in terms of contributory infringement that other indexing sites (Google, Bing, etc) don't do. That is an argument that you are making, not a foregone conclusion. First off, the branding matters when it comes to intent. The name, "The Pirate Bay" leaves it pretty clear what they're expecting you to do with the site. Also, there's the fact that Google and other search engines are responsive to DMCA requests, TPB is not. Finally, there's the political positions of the organization running the site. Their service is much closer to cperciva's analogy than it is to a normal search engine.
- yason 11y ago
belorn 11y ago
While the question is interesting from a law theory perspective, the pirate bay was actually never charged for being in violation of copyright. The court decision referenced a rather obscure law which was intended to address organize crime. The law basically says that if a service is primarily used for illegal purposes, then running that service is illegal under current assisting laws. The intention of the law makers was to give the police the ability to shut down biker bars that was used as headquarters, without the normal procedure of having to find tax crimes or some other excuse to shut it down. The prosecutor in the pirate bay case provided a screenshot of the top 100 shared file list and said that this proved that the primary usage of the site was copyright infringement. The defense argued that you could not determine this, using the long tail argument. The court went with the prosecutors argument and so did the appeal court.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  What is "the long tail argument"? That the service was provided for legitimate means but most people in the long tail use it for illegal means?
  - rahimnathwani 11y ago
    Even if the top 100 moat popular torrents do infringe on copyrights, the many less popular torrents (the long tail) may outnumber them in downloads etc.
    - belorn 11y ago
      Yep. If someone for example had access to amazon top 100 sold books, the information one could derive from it would be surprisingly little. You could not determine what genre is most popularly sold, what the profit margins are in the book market, or who the target audience generally are.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cbd1984 11y ago
You can't break the law through a clever loophole. Or, well, you can for a while, but eventually a judge will wake up and see what you're doing and apply the law you're breaking to you, even if you think you're strictly within its boundaries. If you want to do something that's currently illegal, CHANGE THE LAWS.

mbrutsch 11y ago

Many of us believe it is, yes.