5 ms·

The Pirate Bay - Innocent or Guilty?

15 points by asmosoinio 18y ago

Flemlord 18y ago
Guilty, of course. But the solution isn't to shut them down using the courts, the solution is for the content providers to make movies & tv easily available electronically. I can download books and read them but I don't, because it's so much easier just to buy them on my Kindle. Ditto with iTunes for music. If there was a legal source I could download the last Battlestar episode that I missed, then I'd use that too.
- throw_away 18y ago
  such as: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UA8ECU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-video&qid=1236206143&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UA8ECU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UT...
  - Flemlord 18y ago
    That's not convenient for me. I'd like an option in my Tivo that lets me watch it instantly in hi-def for $2. Or for free if I already subscribe to the SciFi network.
    - throw_away 18y ago
      there's this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/tivo/ref=atv_faq_tivo http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/tivo/ref=atv_faq_tivo which would allow you to watch it instantly on your tivo at 480p for $2.
vaksel 18y ago
Guilty, but the genie is out of the bottle so punishing them won't achieve anything
amvp 18y ago
I'm seeing 2 votes for guilty here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say innocent. The charge is "assisting in making copyright content available". Which seems like a very vague charge. Why are they more guilty than any other search engine? TPB has a name that isn't going to do it any favors - but when it comes down to it, they provide a site that assists file sharing, and don't concern themselves with the files being shared. They, like any other search engine, or ISP, shoudn't be liable for their users crimes.
- dschobel 18y ago
  "They, like any other search engine, or ISP, shouldn't be liable for their users crimes." I agree but most ISPs & search engines stop the illegal activities of their users when the copy-right holders bring it to their attention. You can even go farther and argue that it encourages the infringement because it allows browsing by static categories such as tv, movies and music so they know darn well what's being traded on their trackers. Therefore they can't use the google defense of "we provide a living breathing and dynamic window of what's on the web, and some of it is 'bad stuff' which is beyond our control". TBP says: "movies? check aisle 1, tv shows? aisle 2, music albums? aisle 3".
whughes 18y ago
Am I the only one who finds the attempts of TorrentFreak and others to popularize the term "King Kong defense" obnoxious? It seems like a weak attempt to create a viral phrase with very limited real application. It just irks me every time I read one of their articles.
- Zev 18y ago
  This is nothing new from TorrentFreak. They have a long history of sensationalism and pulling things out of context to create a story or heavily bias it in one way.

15 points by asmosoinio 18y ago

Guilty, of course. But the solution isn't to shut them down using the courts, the solution is for the content providers to make movies & tv easily available electronically. I can download books and read them but I don't, because it's so much easier just to buy them on my Kindle. Ditto with iTunes for music. If there was a legal source I could download the last Battlestar episode that I missed, then I'd use that too.

throw_away 18y ago
such as: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UA8ECU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-video&qid=1236206143&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UA8ECU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UT...
- Flemlord 18y ago
  That's not convenient for me. I'd like an option in my Tivo that lets me watch it instantly in hi-def for $2. Or for free if I already subscribe to the SciFi network.
  - throw_away 18y ago
    there's this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/tivo/ref=atv_faq_tivo http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/tivo/ref=atv_faq_tivo which would allow you to watch it instantly on your tivo at 480p for $2.

vaksel 18y ago

Guilty, but the genie is out of the bottle so punishing them won't achieve anything

amvp 18y ago

I'm seeing 2 votes for guilty here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say innocent. The charge is "assisting in making copyright content available". Which seems like a very vague charge. Why are they more guilty than any other search engine? TPB has a name that isn't going to do it any favors - but when it comes down to it, they provide a site that assists file sharing, and don't concern themselves with the files being shared. They, like any other search engine, or ISP, shoudn't be liable for their users crimes.

dschobel 18y ago
"They, like any other search engine, or ISP, shouldn't be liable for their users crimes." I agree but most ISPs & search engines stop the illegal activities of their users when the copy-right holders bring it to their attention. You can even go farther and argue that it encourages the infringement because it allows browsing by static categories such as tv, movies and music so they know darn well what's being traded on their trackers. Therefore they can't use the google defense of "we provide a living breathing and dynamic window of what's on the web, and some of it is 'bad stuff' which is beyond our control". TBP says: "movies? check aisle 1, tv shows? aisle 2, music albums? aisle 3".

whughes 18y ago

Am I the only one who finds the attempts of TorrentFreak and others to popularize the term "King Kong defense" obnoxious? It seems like a weak attempt to create a viral phrase with very limited real application. It just irks me every time I read one of their articles.

Zev 18y ago
This is nothing new from TorrentFreak. They have a long history of sensationalism and pulling things out of context to create a story or heavily bias it in one way.