5 ms·

I guess I should be more clear. Their defense is probably the best strategy for defeating the charges in a court of law. But the tone of obvious righteousness t

I guess I should be more clear. Their defense is probably the best strategy for defeating the charges in a court of law. But the tone of obvious righteousness that the defendants and the internet community has taken on seems unwarranted given the flimsy nature of their arguments. Or maybe someone can explain to me why helping people break the law should be legal. Arguing minutiae might be a good way to win in court. But outside of court, the term "legalistic" has a negative connotation. Legalistic arguments are seldom a good way to convince people that you are right. I don't understand why they seem to convinced so many people with such a legalistic defense.

unalone 18y ago
Or maybe someone can explain to me why helping people break the law should be legal. Does Google break the law because it makes it easy for me to search for mp3s to download? Or are they providing a useful service, and in doing do creating functionality that makes it possible to do illegal things? ThePirateBay is an extension of that idea: if you make a service, even if that service breaks laws you are not to blame. And TPB is pretty much at the limit of that: they mock the people who've been stolen, they openly admit they help pirates - and yet, they themselves have done nothing wrong. They provide a service. They're allowed to call attention to the laws broken by their users and it's still not breaking the law. Arguing minutiae might be a good way to win in court. It's not minutiae. I find it a pretty repugnant attitude, this assumption that things ought to be black-and-white simple. They haven't broken the law. That's why they're winning. It's like this: if somebody asks me where they can download an album for free, because I know and they don't, if I tell them I'm not breaking the law. I'm merely being useful. That's what TPB's done. They don't steal movies. They don't host stolen content. They merely make it easy for people to find it, and that's shady, but not illegal. But outside of court, the term "legalistic" has a negative connotation. For me, "legalistic" has a pretty positive connotation. It implies that there's thought behind a process, and that logic is being used. It's a lot better than "impulsive judgement," which is what you're using. You don't defend your points. You just assume that they're bad and wrong and that we're all stupid to be defending it - that despite the many, many stories posted here that explain very specifically the rights that ThePirateBay has. I don't understand why they seem to convinced so many people with such a legalistic defense. Partly because a lot of us like free stuff, yes. But partly it's because a lot of people care about this stuff, and we think the RIAA is just as shady as ThePirateBay, and we want to see a new method come in that doesn't allow a bunch of legal-minded people with no appreciation for music and music distribution to cheat bands out of money, to deny a lot of musicians the right to profit, and to pursue draconic punishments for the people who speak out against them.
- otto 18y ago
  Does Google break the law because it makes it easy for me to search for mp3s to download? Google isn't hosting the files that point to trackers and ultimately other peers to download from. There are cases similar to this: Galoob v Nintendo. In this case Galoob was cleared of charges as it was found that users of Game Genie, while altering games, were not creating derivative works that violated Copyright. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation Professional photographer vs image search service. It was decided since Arriba was just showing thumbnails and did not have the actual files on their servers they were in the clear. I personally think the charges are a little out of hand. That said if you don't have rights to the files you are doing something wrong. The repercussions of the pirate bay winning or losing this case are definitely going to be interesting.
  - unalone 18y ago
    But torrent files don't aren't in themselves illegal, even if they point to illegal content. TPB doesn't host illegal material. It only hosts the files that point to them. So technically, they're not being illegal.
    - otto 18y ago
      But they also are providing trackers. They are assisting in copyright violations and they often mock requests to remove such files that help others violate copyright. That said, my thoughts are based on US copyright. Please mod me down, but this case is a bit more complicated than "I like to torrent Music" and other self-serving interests.
      - unalone 18y ago
        Nah! HN doesn't downmod kneejerk.* The problem with this case is that TPB isn't US. Sweden laws say they're fine. *sometimes
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  There's that legalistic nitpicking again. Google is a general purpose service. People actually use it for lawful purposes, maybe even most of the time. On the other hand, the whole point of the Pirate Bay is to violate copyright. I've never seen it used for a lawful purpose, though I am sure it is occasionally. That's a substantive difference. It would ring a lot more honest to me if the defenders of Pirate Bay said "I like to download things and I think current IP laws are wrong". That's a valid position that can be argued. This position just seems childish to me, and not a brilliant defense as some say. If I sold guns in packages with maps and schedules of the daily habits of people's enemies, who later ended up dead, I am pretty sure they would still lock me up for being an accessory to murder. As they ought. On another thread, Pirate Bay's defenders said that such a business should be legal, too, as the businessman isn't actually doing anything wrong. That, to me, is a sign that they have sacrificed prudence in support of their agenda. I like The Pirate Bay. I want to see them survive. That doesn't mean I have to accept bad arguments just because I am on their side.

unalone 18y ago

Or maybe someone can explain to me why helping people break the law should be legal. Does Google break the law because it makes it easy for me to search for mp3s to download? Or are they providing a useful service, and in doing do creating functionality that makes it possible to do illegal things? ThePirateBay is an extension of that idea: if you make a service, even if that service breaks laws you are not to blame. And TPB is pretty much at the limit of that: they mock the people who've been stolen, they openly admit they help pirates - and yet, they themselves have done nothing wrong. They provide a service. They're allowed to call attention to the laws broken by their users and it's still not breaking the law. Arguing minutiae might be a good way to win in court. It's not minutiae. I find it a pretty repugnant attitude, this assumption that things ought to be black-and-white simple. They haven't broken the law. That's why they're winning. It's like this: if somebody asks me where they can download an album for free, because I know and they don't, if I tell them I'm not breaking the law. I'm merely being useful. That's what TPB's done. They don't steal movies. They don't host stolen content. They merely make it easy for people to find it, and that's shady, but not illegal. But outside of court, the term "legalistic" has a negative connotation. For me, "legalistic" has a pretty positive connotation. It implies that there's thought behind a process, and that logic is being used. It's a lot better than "impulsive judgement," which is what you're using. You don't defend your points. You just assume that they're bad and wrong and that we're all stupid to be defending it - that despite the many, many stories posted here that explain very specifically the rights that ThePirateBay has. I don't understand why they seem to convinced so many people with such a legalistic defense. Partly because a lot of us like free stuff, yes. But partly it's because a lot of people care about this stuff, and we think the RIAA is just as shady as ThePirateBay, and we want to see a new method come in that doesn't allow a bunch of legal-minded people with no appreciation for music and music distribution to cheat bands out of money, to deny a lot of musicians the right to profit, and to pursue draconic punishments for the people who speak out against them.

otto 18y ago
Does Google break the law because it makes it easy for me to search for mp3s to download? Google isn't hosting the files that point to trackers and ultimately other peers to download from. There are cases similar to this: Galoob v Nintendo. In this case Galoob was cleared of charges as it was found that users of Game Genie, while altering games, were not creating derivative works that violated Copyright. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation Professional photographer vs image search service. It was decided since Arriba was just showing thumbnails and did not have the actual files on their servers they were in the clear. I personally think the charges are a little out of hand. That said if you don't have rights to the files you are doing something wrong. The repercussions of the pirate bay winning or losing this case are definitely going to be interesting.
- unalone 18y ago
  But torrent files don't aren't in themselves illegal, even if they point to illegal content. TPB doesn't host illegal material. It only hosts the files that point to them. So technically, they're not being illegal.
  - otto 18y ago
    But they also are providing trackers. They are assisting in copyright violations and they often mock requests to remove such files that help others violate copyright. That said, my thoughts are based on US copyright. Please mod me down, but this case is a bit more complicated than "I like to torrent Music" and other self-serving interests.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Nah! HN doesn't downmod kneejerk.* The problem with this case is that TPB isn't US. Sweden laws say they're fine. *sometimes
jacoblyles 18y ago
There's that legalistic nitpicking again. Google is a general purpose service. People actually use it for lawful purposes, maybe even most of the time. On the other hand, the whole point of the Pirate Bay is to violate copyright. I've never seen it used for a lawful purpose, though I am sure it is occasionally. That's a substantive difference. It would ring a lot more honest to me if the defenders of Pirate Bay said "I like to download things and I think current IP laws are wrong". That's a valid position that can be argued. This position just seems childish to me, and not a brilliant defense as some say. If I sold guns in packages with maps and schedules of the daily habits of people's enemies, who later ended up dead, I am pretty sure they would still lock me up for being an accessory to murder. As they ought. On another thread, Pirate Bay's defenders said that such a business should be legal, too, as the businessman isn't actually doing anything wrong. That, to me, is a sign that they have sacrificed prudence in support of their agenda. I like The Pirate Bay. I want to see them survive. That doesn't mean I have to accept bad arguments just because I am on their side.