4 ms·

Without taking sides regarding the original issue, it's incredible how many people consider US law as universal law without any further thought.

ikeboy 10y ago
When TPB claims to be DMCA-compliant, that's what we're judging them on.
- hansjorg 10y ago
  The DMCA is completely irrelevant in their case, no matter what anybody claims, as they're not based in the US. I realize that the idea that something is out of reach of US supremacy is a tough pill to swallow for some kinds of people, but come on.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    First of all, it can be relevant if the provider of the domain is subject to US laws. But right now it's relevant because TPB claimed to be DMCA-compliant. Whether or not they legally have to be compliant is not relevant to whether they are compliant.
    - hansjorg 10y ago
      > it's relevant because TPB claimed to be DMCA-compliant What they claim is irrelevant. Do you really think the DMCA embodies some universal moral code? That's the only way what you're saying would make any sense.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        I'm claiming that TPB is lying. I'm not sure why that would be irrelevant.
        hansjorg 10y ago
        I don't care about that, I was only replying to your implicit statement that US law somehow should apply universally. I'm not sure you even understand why someone would object to this, so I don't think we need to discuss this any further.
        ikeboy 10y ago
        I never made such a statement, and don't believe it.
    - lugg 10y ago
      Considering they're not in the US they are DMCA-compliant no? Compliant as far as compliance is required for non US states..
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  Given that TPB doesn't actually host any content that could be taken down by a DMCA notice - they are DMCA compliant. Their response to "take down links to this hash" is "you don't own that hash" which is true.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    >Given that TPB doesn't actually host any content that could be taken down by a DMCA notice Which has not been established by any precedent yet, as far as I've been able to tell. >Their response to "take down links to this hash" is "you don't own that hash" which is true. That's not the responses they've given before. (see http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/ http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/)
    - abritinthebay 10y ago
      The legal precedent is the DMCA itself - it can't be used against things the person doesn't have copyright over. It's quite specific actually. Those hashes are not what they have ownership of. Now if you meant hat they want to expand that law... well yes, but that's different.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        Claiming that your untested interpretation of the law says something does not make precedent. This particular argument hasn't yet made it to court, but torrent cases have, and torrents are basically just more detailed hashes of each section of a file. Your argument would imply that torrent files are also legal, and yet Isohunt and others have lost in court over them.

ikeboy 10y ago

When TPB claims to be DMCA-compliant, that's what we're judging them on.

hansjorg 10y ago
The DMCA is completely irrelevant in their case, no matter what anybody claims, as they're not based in the US. I realize that the idea that something is out of reach of US supremacy is a tough pill to swallow for some kinds of people, but come on.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  First of all, it can be relevant if the provider of the domain is subject to US laws. But right now it's relevant because TPB claimed to be DMCA-compliant. Whether or not they legally have to be compliant is not relevant to whether they are compliant.
  - hansjorg 10y ago
    > it's relevant because TPB claimed to be DMCA-compliant What they claim is irrelevant. Do you really think the DMCA embodies some universal moral code? That's the only way what you're saying would make any sense.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      I'm claiming that TPB is lying. I'm not sure why that would be irrelevant.
      - hansjorg 10y ago
        I don't care about that, I was only replying to your implicit statement that US law somehow should apply universally. I'm not sure you even understand why someone would object to this, so I don't think we need to discuss this any further.
        ikeboy 10y ago
        I never made such a statement, and don't believe it.
  - lugg 10y ago
    Considering they're not in the US they are DMCA-compliant no? Compliant as far as compliance is required for non US states..
abritinthebay 10y ago
Given that TPB doesn't actually host any content that could be taken down by a DMCA notice - they are DMCA compliant. Their response to "take down links to this hash" is "you don't own that hash" which is true.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  >Given that TPB doesn't actually host any content that could be taken down by a DMCA notice Which has not been established by any precedent yet, as far as I've been able to tell. >Their response to "take down links to this hash" is "you don't own that hash" which is true. That's not the responses they've given before. (see http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/ http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/)
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    The legal precedent is the DMCA itself - it can't be used against things the person doesn't have copyright over. It's quite specific actually. Those hashes are not what they have ownership of. Now if you meant hat they want to expand that law... well yes, but that's different.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Claiming that your untested interpretation of the law says something does not make precedent. This particular argument hasn't yet made it to court, but torrent cases have, and torrents are basically just more detailed hashes of each section of a file. Your argument would imply that torrent files are also legal, and yet Isohunt and others have lost in court over them.