3 ms·

Agreed. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. You're right. But doesn't it bother anyone that torrent sites that are pretty well known for providing acces

Agreed. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. You're right. But doesn't it bother anyone that torrent sites that are pretty well known for providing access to pirated content (whether a link constitutes infringement is not the issue here) are hiding behind freedom? I feel like they shouldn't be on the front lines of this. They're going to hurt and make us look bad more than they help. Maybe if some well known people or companies took the lead on this it would make the whole opposition look better and give us more credibility. TorrentFreak is exactly the kind of site that is the poster child they use to claim these measures are necessary. They should hang back and be quiet, right? If I'm wrong I'd like to know. I read so much about this and I thought my position was solid but now I'm wondering.

redthrowaway 15y ago
TorrentFreak is a news site, much like Ars Technica or zdnet. Yes, they focus on torrents, but they themselves can in no way be claimed to be offering infringing content (even if you believe a .torrent is covered by copyright). Yes, I agree with you that the general public may be dismissive of what they say due to their championing of a technology largely used for copyright infringement. It certainly is a PR issue. That said, TorrentFreak is not really in the business of trying to convert skeptics. They're a site that specializes in preaching to the choir, much as boingboing does. There's a legitimate place for sites like that. They get the knowledgeable masses fired up about opposing bad legislation and illegal government seizures, which is never a bad thing. As for torrent sites in general 'providing access' to pirated content, that's a pretty fuzzy area. Google itself offers a torrent search [1]. Are not they, too, 'providing access'? Where do you draw the line? Yes, sites like thepiratebay are well-known for their brazen encouragement of piracy. That does not, however, mean that they are guilty of copyright infringement. My concern with making simple links illegal is that it breaks the Internet. It imposes upon site maintainers the responsibility to ensure that no links on their site direct people to content that the US Government deems unlawful, which is crap. When we accept facilitation of a crime as a crime unto itself, we are conferring upon the authorities the trust that "facilitation" will not be overly broadly interpreted. I don't think we can do that, given the USG's behavior. Thus, I resist any attempt by them to claim more power to decide what content is and is not acceptable. [1] http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003849996876419856805:erhhdbygrma http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003849996876419856805:erhh...

redthrowaway 15y ago

TorrentFreak is a news site, much like Ars Technica or zdnet. Yes, they focus on torrents, but they themselves can in no way be claimed to be offering infringing content (even if you believe a .torrent is covered by copyright). Yes, I agree with you that the general public may be dismissive of what they say due to their championing of a technology largely used for copyright infringement. It certainly is a PR issue. That said, TorrentFreak is not really in the business of trying to convert skeptics. They're a site that specializes in preaching to the choir, much as boingboing does. There's a legitimate place for sites like that. They get the knowledgeable masses fired up about opposing bad legislation and illegal government seizures, which is never a bad thing. As for torrent sites in general 'providing access' to pirated content, that's a pretty fuzzy area. Google itself offers a torrent search [1]. Are not they, too, 'providing access'? Where do you draw the line? Yes, sites like thepiratebay are well-known for their brazen encouragement of piracy. That does not, however, mean that they are guilty of copyright infringement. My concern with making simple links illegal is that it breaks the Internet. It imposes upon site maintainers the responsibility to ensure that no links on their site direct people to content that the US Government deems unlawful, which is crap. When we accept facilitation of a crime as a crime unto itself, we are conferring upon the authorities the trust that "facilitation" will not be overly broadly interpreted. I don't think we can do that, given the USG's behavior. Thus, I resist any attempt by them to claim more power to decide what content is and is not acceptable. [1] http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003849996876419856805:erhhdbygrma http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003849996876419856805:erhh...