somebody wrote:
>> I think it's a slippery slope. I'd rather see the case fail (since they
>> aren't distributing copyrighted information and the prosecution was lame)
>> and have the legislature clarify the situation.
> 
> What more clarification is needed when their raison d'etre is openly and
> publicly stated as to facilitate media and software piracy? They are called
> "the PIRATE bay". 

So, we convict people to jail based on what their company is named?

I guess that means the Pirate Party governmental party should all be put in 
jail too?

> Almost all their traffic is targeted towards piracy.

Had that been shown, sure. Nobody on the prosecution showed that, AFAIK.

Remember that both betamax and xerox fought the same battles.

> What clarification do you need?

AFAIK, they didn't do anything but run a tracker and a public search 
service. Granted, that's what Napster did too.

I think the clarification needs to be in the laws, not the court cases. I'm 
not saying it's right to pirate the stuff. I'm saying the law ought to be 
written in a way that makes clear what "contributory copyright infringement" 
means in an age where automation can contribute to copyright infringement 
without you even knowing it. How closely do you have to watch what people 
post to your server?

In the USA, we have the DMCA, which is pretty abusive, but it's *still* up 
to the copyright owners to tell the ISP that there's something copyrighted 
there. And if you police it yourself and miss some things, then you're in 
more trouble than if you don't police it at all.

> Sometimes, the law needs to stop playing dumb and recognize that if it
> smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, that it is indeed
> a duck without needing gazillions of DNA analyses.

Sure. Looks like a terrorist, sounds like a terrorist, better lock him up!

> I don't buy slippery slope arguments like this. Which legitimate search
> engine is being shut down by RIAA? It's a non-issue until it happens.

> There are recourses for mistakes within the confines of legal system.

Only if you have money and the RIAA didn't put you out of business before it 
goes to the courts. Remember Steve Jackson?  Phil Zimmerman?

>>> I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:
> 
>> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
>> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
> 
> Two wrongs do not make a right. 

So, someone bombs your country, you shouldn't shoot back?

> And even if intentions are noble at the
> beginning (doubtful), money corrupts. It's romanticly appealing to think the
> pirates are acting on ideological grounds, but nobody extorting millions of
> dollars will remain an idealist when they see the green.

Agreed. I'm just thinking that it's much less black vs white than the media 
is portraying it, is all. I'm not saying what they're doing is right. I'm 
just pointing out that probably nobody has the whole story.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message