2 ms·

I'm sorry, I don't understand, how would telling someone that the staff have left the store be breaking the law. And why do you think its a poor analogy. Its a

I'm sorry, I don't understand, how would telling someone that the staff have left the store be breaking the law. And why do you think its a poor analogy. Its a sign post directing people to a place where they could easily access content illegally. Very similar to what TV Shack was doing. The analogy only fails in the sense that in reality the item stolen was digital media (it could be argued that nothing of value is lost) and in the shop scenario, the content is physical media (and therefore value is directly lost). Despite the difference though, thats irrelevant to the action played by TV Shack (and the sign in the analogy).

coob 14y ago
It is the second part of the sign that makes the act of posting it most likely illegal (at least in the UK) as incitement [1]. The analogy's main issue is that it fails to distinguish between theft and copyright infringement which is exactly what the anti-piracy bridge are often accused of doing. Also, a sign is a poor analogy as it is in passive view of the public. A better one (ignoring the theft/infringement issue) would be a guy sitting in a pub who would tell anyone who asked him which stores had no staff in, and that they could take what they wished. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
- experiment0 14y ago
  I realise that incitement is illegal in the UK, but it is America that is pushing for the extradition. I would also argue that a website is in full view of the public (especially with the amount of sharing that occurs). But like I said in my original response, it doesn't matter whether or not it is copyright infringement or theft, as in the analogy we are discussing the actions of TV Shack not the actual hosting of the material. What I mean is, this isn't a discussion about whether copyright infringement is illegal, but instead whether linking is illegal, and I think the two crimes presented are comparable enough (although definitely not the same), for the difference to be easily overlooked for the sake of getting across a message.
  - coob 14y ago
    If you're going to have that discussion, you shouldn't use a poor analogy, nor should you state that said analogy is not illegal, when it could well be the case that it is.

coob 14y ago

It is the second part of the sign that makes the act of posting it most likely illegal (at least in the UK) as incitement [1]. The analogy's main issue is that it fails to distinguish between theft and copyright infringement which is exactly what the anti-piracy bridge are often accused of doing. Also, a sign is a poor analogy as it is in passive view of the public. A better one (ignoring the theft/infringement issue) would be a guy sitting in a pub who would tell anyone who asked him which stores had no staff in, and that they could take what they wished. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement

experiment0 14y ago
I realise that incitement is illegal in the UK, but it is America that is pushing for the extradition. I would also argue that a website is in full view of the public (especially with the amount of sharing that occurs). But like I said in my original response, it doesn't matter whether or not it is copyright infringement or theft, as in the analogy we are discussing the actions of TV Shack not the actual hosting of the material. What I mean is, this isn't a discussion about whether copyright infringement is illegal, but instead whether linking is illegal, and I think the two crimes presented are comparable enough (although definitely not the same), for the difference to be easily overlooked for the sake of getting across a message.
- coob 14y ago
  If you're going to have that discussion, you shouldn't use a poor analogy, nor should you state that said analogy is not illegal, when it could well be the case that it is.