3 ms·

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

by 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".