3 ms·
Do you have any precedent that says it's not infringing? Isohunt and others used similar arguments and lost.
by ikeboy 10y ago
Do you have any precedent that says it's not infringing?
Isohunt and others used similar arguments and lost.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wheaties 10y agoThe EU courts have determined, quite rightly, that merely having an link on a website does not equate to piracy.
- ikeboy 10y agoThe EU courts, quite rightly, do not set precedent for US laws like DMCA.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoThe Pirate Bay operates outside of the US; US law (and the DMCA) does not apply to them.
- lambda 10y agoBut PIR, which runs the .ORG registry, does operate in the US, and thus US law applies to them.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoWhich is an odd scenario, isn't it? A US private firm (the RIAA) applying pressure to a US technical registry for US interests when The Pirate Bay doesn't infringe per the letter of the law, nor resides within the United States.
- ikeboy 10y ago>The Pirate Bay doesn't infringe per the letter of the law This is your opinion. So far I haven't seen any US precedent for this, and it's by no means obvious that it's not infringing.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- benmcnelly 10y agoHey did you know that you can go to pirate bay website and find links to content that may not be legal? ^ Am I obviously infringing as well?
- ikeboy 10y agoI never said they're obviously infringing. I said they're not obviously non-infringing. Your comment I would classify as obviously non infringing. Two obvious differences (not the only two): you haven't linked to anything, and you aren't being paid any money for your comment. Did you know TPB founders have gone to prison for copyright infringement? I think the judge did not feel their actions were "obviously not infringing".
- Dylan16807 10y ago> Your comment I would classify as obviously non infringing. Two obvious differences (not the only two): you haven't linked to anything, and you aren't being paid any money for your comment. If that's not linking, then the pirate bay doesn't link either. They supply a description and a SHA1. You have to locate the content yourself. You have to locate the people that have the content yourself. What if TPB didn't have ads?
- ikeboy 10y ago>What if TPB didn't have ads? Then it's more complicated, and depends on other distinctions I alluded to above.
- EdHominem 10y agoWhich is a horrible precedent. If any piece of your infrastructure exists in the USA, even another service serving you, you're guilty of whatever they want. The internet is global. If N. Korea shouldn't be able to extradite you for promoting democracy, the USA shouldn't have any legal power to influence DNS.
- JoshTriplett 10y agoI've seen arguments and precedent in both directions about URLs and similar links; the legal precedent seems unclear, and would likely depend on the facts of an individual case.
- cptskippy 10y agoThe case made against Isohunt was that the overwhelming majority of their index consisted of infringing material and the site was tuned for searching for infringing material. The situation is kind of like headshops in the US. A headshop is legal if it sells "tobacco related products" but illegal if it sells "pot related products". Just like headshops, TPB skirts prosecution by being an agnostic tracker despite everyone knowing what it's all about.
- ikeboy 10y ago>Just like headshops, TPB skirts prosecution by being an agnostic tracker despite everyone knowing what it's all about. No. Founders of TPB have gone to jail, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial.
- TranquilMarmot 10y agoPeople operating online headshops have gone to jail as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Chong#US_vs._Chong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Chong#US_vs._Chong