Thought for the day - If the Pirate bay is guilty, where does that leave Google?

[SUBMAN1]

Google can be used to the same degree of success for finding torrents as the Pirate Bay (only mixed in with other info), so is this a witch hunt when we talk of the Pirate Bay?

Here is a related article:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/pirate_bay_file_sharing_guilty_illegal_sweden

-S

[Aramike]

Google can be used to the same degree of success for finding torrents as the Pirate Bay (only mixed in with other info), so is this a witch hunt when we talk of the Pirate Bay?

Here is a related article:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/pirate_bay_file_sharing_guilty_illegal_sweden

-SAnd yet Google is in, vast majority, used to legit searches while Pirate Bay was the opposite.

Seems pretty cut and dry.

[Taygoo]

yeah..

It is a wierd world.

If you say

Pirate bay is guitly, to share links, so a person can get an movie, game or something else... It is not PB fault that, people share illegal files. There is no filter..
But if it is...
So what about google, yahoo, msn, and other search funktions?
And what about the browsers, that makes people abble to see those sites?
And what about the internet, it would not be possible with out the internet?

Now..if the person who did find out about gunpower, or did make the pistol.
Should that person get arrested, and hanged - because other people can use his idea to hurt, kill, some other person?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[CaptainHaplo]

Taygoo.... interesting point.

So since Al Gore invented the internet - shouldnt he be charged as an accessory to every crime that has ever involved the internet?

Everything from file sharing to child molestations to that guy that killed women that advertised on whatever list that was....

Where is the outrage??????

[NeonSamurai]

And yet Google is in, vast majority, used to legit searches while Pirate Bay was the opposite.

Seems pretty cut and dry.

That is not entirely true, a heck of a lot of people use Google to search for pirated material (music, movies, cracks, serials, key generators, etc), in fact I would say its the number 1 site for such searches. Pirate Bay also does have plenty of legitimate torrents as well as pirated material. The key point is that neither group filters the content they offer, and you can find "warez" just as easily through both search sites.

[Taygoo]

Taygoo.... interesting point.

So since Al Gore invented the internet - shouldnt he be charged as an accessory to every crime that has ever involved the internet?




Well I don't think so.. but ask the judges

[SUBMAN1]

That is not entirely true, a heck of a lot of people use Google to search for pirated material (music, movies, cracks, serials, key generators, etc), in fact I would say its the number 1 site for such searches. Pirate Bay also does have plenty of legitimate torrents as well as pirated material. The key point is that neither group filters the content they offer, and you can find "warez" just as easily through both search sites.

Correct answer right here.

-S

[antikristuseke]

Well, i'll be damned. Agreeing with SUBMAN1 again, the end must be near.:D

[Aramike]

That is not entirely true, a heck of a lot of people use Google to search for pirated material (music, movies, cracks, serials, key generators, etc), in fact I would say its the number 1 site for such searches. Pirate Bay also does have plenty of legitimate torrents as well as pirated material. The key point is that neither group filters the content they offer, and you can find "warez" just as easily through both search sites.I'm quite certain that pirated materials are no where near the top of the list of things searched for using Google. I'm pretty sure that "lyrics" and "myspace" leads the pack.

In any case, this isn't anything like the situation with gun manufacturers. Of course no one but the shooter is responsible for the use of the gun. But, what if, say, the dealer explicitly implied that the guns they sell should be used for illegal purposes?

That wouldn't be legal. And that's what Pirate Bay did. You all DID know the site was founded by an anti-copyright group, right?

[CaptainHaplo]

Its amazing how this discussion mirrors the one on hate crimes.

Its not about what you do with a search engine - or what crime you commit...

It appears the biggest crime is what the intent is when you create a searchable index, or kill a person. If your intent is just to get every peice of the internet indexed, as well as find secret chinese subs and map every square inch of land on the face of the planet - then its ok. Even though these indexes could lead to robberies, pirated intellectual property, etc.
You didn't have an "intent".

Now - if you happen to be a radical who goes against the established norms, having views against what you feel is unfair laws (in this case, copyright laws) and you create a search engine that has no copyrighted data on it - though you do link to sources the same way the example above does - your a criminal who should be incarcerated.

Why? Because your views are against what others think. So your a radical - and must be silenced and punished regardless of if you actually did anything illegal.

Using that same logic - the US wouldn't be its own nation.... Monarchies and similiar would still be the only powers in the world.

Your allowed to have ideas - your allowed to push them. Its only if you DO something illegal that you should be punished. The key here is that the founders didn't actually commit a crime. But because they are radicals in their thinking, they must be punished.

Again - why not go after the pirates instead? See - justice is not blind nor equitable.

[Aramike]

Its amazing how this discussion mirrors the one on hate crimes.

Its not about what you do with a search engine - or what crime you commit...

It appears the biggest crime is what the intent is when you create a searchable index, or kill a person. If your intent is just to get every peice of the internet indexed, as well as find secret chinese subs and map every square inch of land on the face of the planet - then its ok. Even though these indexes could lead to robberies, pirated intellectual property, etc.
You didn't have an "intent".

Now - if you happen to be a radical who goes against the established norms, having views against what you feel is unfair laws (in this case, copyright laws) and you create a search engine that has no copyrighted data on it - though you do link to sources the same way the example above does - your a criminal who should be incarcerated.

Why? Because your views are against what others think. So your a radical - and must be silenced and punished regardless of if you actually did anything illegal.

Using that same logic - the US wouldn't be its own nation.... Monarchies and similiar would still be the only powers in the world.

Your allowed to have ideas - your allowed to push them. Its only if you DO something illegal that you should be punished. The key here is that the founders didn't actually commit a crime. But because they are radicals in their thinking, they must be punished.

Again - why not go after the pirates instead? See - justice is not blind nor equitable.I think it's best to consider the issue within its own bubble. Comparing the complexities surrounding the emergence of the US to a copyright law case is silly.

And, considering that you clearly are the expert here in Swedish law, please cite how you believe they did nothing illegal. They were specifically convicted of being accessory to the crime of copyright law. Being an accessory IS ILLEGAL, even in the US.

Saying that they haven't committed a crime is untrue. They were merely trying to get away with it by using loopholes in the system. Sure, Google can be used to search for illegal torrents - but that's not what their business model was based on. The Pirate Bay's business model REQUIRED the traffic caused by illegal distribution to be successful. That's the difference.

It has absolutely nothing to do with glorifying these guys as though they are somehow "radicals". The morons at NAMBLA are "radicals" by that definition. If they created a portal others could use to carry out their sick acts, would that be okay? Even though, just maybe, a few people would use that portal for legal things?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I think it's best to consider the issue within its own bubble. Comparing the complexities surrounding the emergence of the US to a copyright law case is silly.

And, considering that you clearly are the expert here in Swedish law, please cite how you believe they did nothing illegal. They were specifically convicted of being accessory to the crime of copyright law. Being an accessory IS ILLEGAL, even in the US.

The point is that regardless of their THOUGHTS (and remember that we are supposed to guarantee freedom of thought and expression without prejudice), their participation is no greater than Google (if they used Google to search for the torrent instead).

Saying that they haven't committed a crime is untrue. They were merely trying to get away with it by using loopholes in the system. Sure, Google can be used to search for illegal torrents - but that's not what their business model was based on. The Pirate Bay's business model REQUIRED the traffic caused by illegal distribution to be successful. That's the difference.

Suppose I kill a person as a side business. You are a hit-man that kills people as a profession. Do you contend it is OK that I'm not punished because it is not what my "business model" is based on, and you are because you "require" your killing to be successful?

There is really no such thing as a loophole - it is a perjorative to say "I don't like what they did. I think the law should have banned them from doing this, but it didn't". The law either PERMITS something or doesn't. If you say they went through a "loophole", you are saying the law specifically allows for such an action (even though a very similar alternate action might not be permitted), and thus they hadn't committed a crime, though they ran close to the "walls of the law" (which many businesses do as they hire consultants and accountants to show them, for example, how to notate and place their assets to pay as few taxes as possible through "loopholes" - the businesses that are now frying TPB probably run close to the walls of law themselves).

It has absolutely nothing to do with glorifying these guys as though they are somehow "radicals". The morons at NAMBLA are "radicals" by that definition. If they created a portal others could use to carry out their sick acts, would that be okay? Even though, just maybe, a few people would use that portal for legal things?

This last is a moral argument rather than a legal one. For you to compare NAMBLA to TPB, you'll have to start by demonstrating that the harm severity of piracy is as bad as pedophilia. You'll also have to demonstrate that the gain:loss ratios are as adverse as pedophilia.

IMO, the justification about "intellectual property" is mostly a matter of utilitarianism. Allowing piracy would reduce profits to creators, thus reducing their creative drive, thus reducing the net creative productivity of the nation and reducing the benefits creativity can bring to all. Of course, piracy also has its benefits - wider distribution which brings the benefits of a certain creative work to more people. But this is believed, assumed to be, worth less than the creativity loss.

Right now, it depends on the study, but IIRC it'll seem that once secondary and tertiary factors are calculated in real life, the net financial loss to our dear Big Businesses are either much overestimated or even NEUTRAL. So the assumption is wrong, and in such a scenario, what's left is effectively the gain of piracy, and thus utilitarianism would actually argue (given the studies that show minimal to no financial loss are reasonably correct) argue that piracy is the more moral decision.

Even if there IS a significant loss, piracy can STILL win out. Creative productivity is a nice thing, but if it is priced too highly (it might be the best work, but only 10 people can buy it and enjoy its benefits), or its distribution is somehow restricted. As long as "Benefits of Wider Distribution" > "Loss of Reduced Creativity", piracy is still a net winner in Benefits:Loss.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Are there any precedents for search engines being sued for this sort of stuff? I would be surprised if there weren't.

PD

[Aramike]

The point is that regardless of their THOUGHTS (and remember that we are supposed to guarantee freedom of thought and expression without prejudice), their participation is no greater than Google (if they used Google to search for the torrent instead).I disagree. Their participation equates to greater than Google's as to piracy being their very business model.

Let's go with the gun analogy. It would be similar to a legal gun dealership who's clientele is explicitly geared towards criminal elements. Say there was a gun shop named "Murders R Us". Then say that 85 - 90% of its guns sold were to people who used them in criminal behavior. Technically, that shop sold the guns legally. However, even US law would allow for that shop to be prosecuted for accessory and perhaps conspiracy.

Most legal systems allow for common sense - that's why you have judges. Entities such as The Pirate Bay attempted to use technical loopholes in the law to get away with what they were doing, even though they were CLEARLY encouraging and aiding copyright piracy as their PRIMARY BUSINESS MODEL.

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT PEOPLE WERE THINKING! This has EVERYTHING to do with what they were DOING!Suppose I kill a person as a side business. You are a hit-man that kills people as a profession. Do you contend it is OK that I'm not punished because it is not what my "business model" is based on, and you are because you "require" your killing to be successful?Good analogy. It is, unfortunately, inaccurate. More to point would be to say you killed someone accidently as a side-effect of the business you conduct and then compare it to the professional hitman.

The hitman's business is killing. Your business is providing a non-related service but sometimes accidents happen.There is really no such thing as a loophole - it is a perjorative to say "I don't like what they did. I think the law should have banned them from doing this, but it didn't". The law either PERMITS something or doesn't. If you say they went through a "loophole", you are saying the law specifically allows for such an action (even though a very similar alternate action might not be permitted), and thus they hadn't committed a crime, though they ran close to the "walls of the law" (which many businesses do as they hire consultants and accountants to show them, for example, how to notate and place their assets to pay as few taxes as possible through "loopholes" - the businesses that are now frying TPB probably run close to the walls of law themselves).Umm, there absolutely is a such thing as a loophole. Have you ever looked at the US tax code?

In free societies, laws don't "permit" things. They restrict things. Loopholes come into effect when there's a clear attempt to restrict a certain item and the language doesn't take into account all possibilities.

This is a common, known legal phenomenom. Wiki even has an article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

I know what you're trying to say, but I'm going to go with the legal scholars on this one. :doh:This last is a moral argument rather than a legal one. For you to compare NAMBLA to TPB, you'll have to start by demonstrating that the harm severity of piracy is as bad as pedophilia. You'll also have to demonstrate that the gain:loss ratios are as adverse as pedophilia.Erm, no, it's a LOGIC argument. Usually analogies go to extremes in order to demonstrate logic in a more muddled argument.

Didn't you just try to use the analogy of murder, by the way? And, didn't you just attempt to demonstrate that there are no loopholes (despite that not being true)? I am curious as to why you're changing your argument to accomodate the threshold of your personal morality rather than simply sticking to the logic. You posited that laws need to be specific. If it's not written, then it's not a law. Now, you're backtracking and saying, "well, hey, it depends on how bad the offense is".

My point is simple: the NAMBLA example points to something that common sense dictates is wrong, and would easily amount to conspiracy and accessory (and I doubt anyone here would be defending them).

On the other hand, when the recording companies are the victims, it's okay because we all hate the recording comanies, right? (By the way, I hate the record companies too.)

You really kind of just made my point.IMO, the justification about "intellectual property" is mostly a matter of utilitarianism. Allowing piracy would reduce profits to creators, thus reducing their creative drive, thus reducing the net creative productivity of the nation and reducing the benefits creativity can bring to all. Of course, piracy also has its benefits - wider distribution which brings the benefits of a certain creative work to more people. But this is believed, assumed to be, worth less than the creativity loss.

Right now, it depends on the study, but IIRC it'll seem that once secondary and tertiary factors are calculated in real life, the net financial loss to our dear Big Businesses are either much overestimated or even NEUTRAL. So the assumption is wrong, and in such a scenario, what's left is effectively the gain of piracy, and thus utilitarianism would actually argue (given the studies that show minimal to no financial loss are reasonably correct) argue that piracy is the more moral decision.

Even if there IS a significant loss, piracy can STILL win out. Creative productivity is a nice thing, but if it is priced too highly (it might be the best work, but only 10 people can buy it and enjoy its benefits), or its distribution is somehow restricted. As long as "Benefits of Wider Distribution" > "Loss of Reduced Creativity", piracy is still a net winner in Benefits:Loss. I actually agree with all of this. But, this isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not a crime has been committed.

I believe that the Pirate Bay was committing a crime.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I disagree. Their participation equates to greater than Google's as to piracy being their very business model.
Let's go with the gun analogy. It would be similar to a legal gun dealership who's clientele is explicitly geared towards criminal elements. Say there was a gun shop named "Murders R Us".

Not in itself a problem.

Then say that 85 - 90% of its guns sold were to people who used them in criminal behavior. Technically, that shop sold the guns legally. However, even US law would allow for that shop to be prosecuted for accessory and perhaps conspiracy.
If the guns are sold legally, then it is at best a tough case for whether the charges of accessory of conspiracy will stick, especially if they didn't interact with the 85-90%, just sold guns to them without asking questions.

Let's modify one more factor to make it fit better. Suppose it IS Murder's R Us, but they don't really sell guns. They hand out a perfectly legal piece of paper (and no, they don't make money directly off those pieces of paper too) which when presented to another place, gets a hundred unknown people from all around the world to send you gun parts (chances are none of them will ever send you an entire gun), which you have to put together yourself (customer is to obtain an auto-assembly machine himself, and those machines themselves are legal). Now how does that change the culpabilities.
Most legal systems allow for common sense - that's why you have judges. Entities such as The Pirate Bay attempted to use technical loopholes in the law to get away with what they were doing, even though they were CLEARLY encouraging and aiding copyright piracy as their PRIMARY BUSINESS MODEL.
"Common sense" is one of those terms like initiative or "acting on intent". You like it (and term it as such) only as long as the decisions that come out of it agree with your views.
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT PEOPLE WERE THINKING! This has EVERYTHING to do with what they were DOING!Good analogy. It is, unfortunately, inaccurate. More to point would be to say you killed someone accidently as a side-effect of the business you conduct and then compare it to the professional hitman.
Even if I accept your analogy, how acceptable is it that the former is NOT PUNISHED AT ALL, while the other gets stuck. I mean, people died in both cases, no?
In free societies, laws don't "permit" things. They restrict things. Loopholes come into effect when there's a clear attempt to restrict a certain item and the language doesn't take into account all possibilities.
By this analogy, it is STILL true regardless what you think of attempts or intents, the law itself does not restrict that particular activity, until the law itself is changed.

By the way, you cannot logically argue that "A is trying to get through on a technicality / loophole" and "A is trying to be a criminal" simultaneously. Imagine a situation where a ship is faced with a wall and a narrow, shallow-looking channel - the choices are either a wide runabout or going for the channel. The Captain chooses to go for the channel. He may or may not misjudge and rub his bottom on something, and it isn't the safest of maneuvers, but you can hardly say he intended to go aground.

Going further with this analogy, if the judge really made his decision based on "common sense", then in the name of common sense, the judge just did the equivalent of dropping a mine in the middle of said channel just to force SS Pirate Bay to run aground. Whatever you might think of Pirate Bay's Captain, the judge's move is hardly praiseworthy...
This is a common, known legal phenomenom. Wiki even has an article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
There's nothing there that even asserts that it is a professional rather than colloquial term.
You posited that laws need to be specific. If it's not written, then it's not a law. Now, you're backtracking and saying, "well, hey, it depends on how bad the offense is".
My point is simple: the NAMBLA example points to something that common sense dictates is wrong, and would easily amount to conspiracy and accessory (and I doubt anyone here would be defending them).
One reason I really don't like NAMBLA is because it is very rhetorical. OK, I'll bite the bullet.

Under our principles of free association, free speech ... etc, the logical outcome is that YES, it is actually acceptable. Even if the links are all to child porn sites or "Plan your Next Child Gang-Rape" forums, we are really supposed to allow them according to those deontological principles we hold so dear. We are supposed to just go after those who actually conduct said sick acts (and after they conducted them, before it is only "thoughtcrime" and we are supposed to respect Freedom of Thought). If anything, monitoring those sites and links might allow us to target them easier, if that's what we are interested in.

NEVERTHELESS, utilitarianism kicks in here. After adding up the known and projected subjective and objective costs (such as the expected mental damage caused by the acts to children) and benefits of access to child porn sites and the like, society has made an almost unanimous Decision that the costs massively outweigh the small benefits (such as the joy brought to the pedophile). Thus, the loss of freedom (bad) in crimping those links is considered an acceptable cost. But make no mistake, we HAVE actually violated some of our deontological principles here.
For a less universal example of this principle, Germany had also decided that Nazi ideas are illegal in their country, while in other countries they'll be distasteful but still legally covered under Free Speech. This is also in itself a violation of free speech, but again, benefits and costs as perceived by the German people.

This is why I demanded that you show that the Utilitarian balance is as adverse as in NAMBLA, because otherwise, the factors are so different from NAMBLA (it is arguable NAMBLA is an exception to our usual principles, as we discussed above) that it cannot be a valid analogy IMO.
Somehow, considering the proliferation of piracy, I doubt society's subjective perception of it is nearly as adverse as pedophilia, and the objective studies available are apparently ambiguous. Especially since we hate the record companies (actually I don't even really listen to music), which further adjusts the subjective factor. :D

[Aramike]

Erm, nice try to confuse the issue, but we're not talking about a utilitarian balance here. We're talking about specific laws. Here's YOUR quote:The law either PERMITS something or doesn't.Either this statement is true or it is not, regardless of the morality of the situation.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I agree. But according to YOU, this is "common sense", so by YOUR concession, the law actually doesn't restrict it. But the judge decided, on his own "native wit" (to use the Soviet derogation of this kind of "initiative") to act as if it does.

[Aramike]

I agree. But according to YOU, this is "common sense", so by YOUR concession, the law actually doesn't restrict it. But the judge decided, on his own "native wit" (to use the Soviet derogation of this kind of "initiative") to act as if it does.I've always maintained that the law doesn't explicitely restrict said activities. Ultimately, however, there is room within law to use common sense and thusly prosecute those who attempt to bypass the spirit of the law using loopholes in the language.

That's been my point all along.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I've always maintained that the law doesn't explicitely restrict said activities.
Thanks for conceding that they intended to and WERE indeed passing through a clear passage.
Ultimately, however, there is room within law to use common sense and thusly prosecute those who attempt to bypass the spirit of the law using loopholes in the language.

Imagine a scenario where a particular nation lays down countless mines with the apparent intent of restricting access to its shores to a few toll-paying passages which cost an arm and a leg.

Now, for some reason, a particular free passage is available through this minefield (on the chart BTW, it is not marked as mined). Over the years, countless ships have used it in lieu of the toll passages, many of which hold dim views over that minefield and its restriction of free navigation, yet the passage is never mined. One of the most obnoxious actually is named "SS Minefield Breaker". The ship's webpage is filled with rhetoric on Freedom of Navigation and objections to the minefield. In fact, it is hard not to get the impression that a main reason SS Minefield Breaker constantly traverses the channel is to show their contempt for it.

One day, SS Minefield Breaker makes another routine passage through the channel. A little known Örlogskapten (Lieutenant Commander) named Norstrom, a suspected affilitate of certain pro-minefield organizations and perhaps fed-up with ships passing through the free passage, decided to fire on SS Minefield Breaker on his own initiative.

Are you REALLY going to say Norstrom used his "common sense", that SS Minefield Breaker was "trying to bypass the 'spirit' of the minefield" and getting through a "loophole"? And even if all of the above is true, that Norstrom was right to fire?

[Aramike]

Thanks for conceding that they intended to and WERE indeed passing through a clear passage.Dude, please comprehend what I am saying. I am *NOT* conceding that they were free and clear. I'm saying that they were merely ATTEMPTING to use technicalities as justification for the legality of their actions. Judges are the ones society tasks to decide whether or not said technicalities are justifiable.

The judges have spoken.

As far as your minefield analogy goes, it would be more accurate to say the ship was towed out of the waters and the crew arrested. In which case, they could be charged with trespassing, as the waters (copyright material and protection laws) are clearly legally restricted from free navigation.

To say that there's an area not marked as mined would be inaccurate - copyrighted material being shared freely is marked as "mined".

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Dude, please comprehend what I am saying. I am *NOT* conceding that they were free and clear. I'm saying that they were merely ATTEMPTING to use technicalities as justification for the legality of their actions.

Whether they really touched bottom or not, if they were "attempting to use technicalities", then as far as they knew, the road was clear.

So you can't say they were intentionally violating the law. They clearly hold it in contempt, but the right to disagree with a law, to consider it wrong, and to do the bare bare minimum for laws you disagree with is enshrined in our freedoms.

Judges are the ones society tasks to decide whether or not said technicalities are justifiable.
The judges have spoken.

If they have spoken, then we won't have appeals. One judge merely exceeded his authority, possibly motivated by his ideology.

Besides, if you really believe this, then Örlogskapten Norstrom was perfectly right to sink SS Minefield Breaker and you don't need to try and soft-soap the analogy down below. After all, he was TASKED by society to defend the shore too...

As far as your minefield analogy goes, it would be more accurate
to say the ship was towed out of the waters and the crew arrested.

If they didn't lay minefields in my analogy, but only sent out patrol boats to shoo them away, this analogy would work better. What a pathetic attempt to downgrade Norstrom's action (relative to the scale of the original analogy) in an attempt to buy popularity points. :shifty:

Besides, even in this scenario, would you REALLY say that SS Minefield Breaker was "trying to bypass the 'spirit' of the minefield" and Norstrom was RIGHT in doing so?

In which case, they could be charged with trespassing, as the waters (copyright material and protection laws) are clearly legally restricted from free navigation.

Actually, that little part they were passing through WASN'T mined. It doesn't matter that mines surround them top and bottom.

To say that there's an area not marked as mined would be inaccurate - copyrighted material being shared freely is marked as "mined".

Yet, all they passed are little text files. The passage of little text files is NOT marked as mined.

One reason why I used a sea analogy is because of the General Principle of Freedom of Navigation, which is similar to the Western concept of law - the general principle is freedom and laws restrict, not permit. Obviously, you and Norstrom disagree with this principle.

[Aramike]

"Whether they really touched bottom or not, if they were "attempting to use technicalities", then as far as they knew, the road was clear.

So you can't say they were intentionally violating the law. They clearly hold it in contempt, but the right to disagree with a law, to consider it wrong, and to do the bare bare minimum for laws you disagree with is enshrined in our freedoms.The best response to this is the principle of "Ignorantia juris non excusat" - "ignorance of the law excuses no one".

Whether or not they were intentionally violating the law is irrelevent. They WERE, however, intentionally attempting to circumvent a legal protection by shrouding themselves in technicalities. Unfortunately, however, they were clearly unaware that doing so amounts to conspiracy and accessory.If they have spoken, then we won't have appeals. One judge merely exceeded his authority, possibly motivated by his ideology.How, specifically (please use citations) did the judge exceed his authority? They were found guilty of accessory. That, and the sentence, is well within the judge's authority. The issue of concern is whether or not a bias influenced the verdict - not whether or not the verdict was legal.

In any case, you are right - it is perfectly legal to disagree with any law (at least in free societies). What is NOT legal is to take actions designed specifically to circumvent the law, or allow others to do so. That is what The Pirate Bay founders was found guilty of, and I happen to agree.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

"The best response to this is the principle of "Ignorantia juris non excusat" - "ignorance of the law excuses no one".

That's a famous Western legal principle, whose realism and moral appropriateness is questionable considering law's current complexity, which virtually eliminates the possibility of most people (and even lawyers) knowing all its details.

Are they also obliged to know a particular judge's absurdist interpretations of law in addition to the law itself?

Whether or not they were intentionally violating the law is irrelevent. They WERE, however, intentionally attempting to circumvent a legal protection by shrouding themselves in technicalities.

In other words, though they aren't keeping a wide berth, they were intentionally avoiding a law violation. (Keeping a wide berth is not required by Western concepts of freedom - if anything, people keeping a wide berth of the law at the expense of their own freedoms is considered to be self-censorship, and is a sign that the country isn't all that free).

Unfortunately, however, they were clearly unaware that doing so amounts to conspiracy and accessory.How, specifically (please use citations) did the judge exceed his authority? They were found guilty of accessory. That, and the sentence, is well within the judge's authority. The issue of concern is whether or not a bias influenced the verdict - not whether or not the verdict was legal.

Yeah, who would have thunk it. The law itself doesn't forbid TPB's actions, and Norstrom HIMSELF flat out (which makes him a rather shameless bastard IMO) admits the thinness of his Accessory verdict. Instead of even TRYING to sell that TPB "significantly assisted" in the "principal crime", he mutters in his verdict: "responsibility for assistance can strike someone who has only insignificantly assisted in the principal crime" (Wiki, in turn from CNET).

In other words, thinness of association is irrevelant, and one can prosecute Google, the computer dealer, most ISPs, all the way to the file sharer's parents (they "insigificantly assisted" in his crime by conceiving our file sharer...) and his computer teacher (who taught him computer skills and "insignificantly assisted" our file sharer's ability to log on the Internet...)!

If that's not exceeding authority, I don't know what is. When you are talking about "loopholes" and "legal technicalities", are you sure THIS is not what you are referring to? Is this really supposed to be "common sense" by usual definitions?

In any case, you are right - it is perfectly legal to disagree with any law (at least in free societies). What is NOT legal is to take actions designed specifically to circumvent the law, or allow others to do so. That is what The Pirate Bay founders was found guilty of, and I happen to agree.

Read above. If anybody was trying to "circumvent the law", it is the judge, who admits it at least as shamelessly as TPB.

[Aramike]

That's a famous Western legal principle, whose realism and moral appropriateness is questionable considering law's current complexity, which virtually eliminates the possibility of most people (and even lawyers) knowing all its details....which is rendered irrelevent by the fact that the perps were clearly attempting to circumvent a law which they were clearly aware of.Are they also obliged to know a particular judge's absurdist interpretations of law in addition to the law itself?Please demonstrate how the ruling in question is an "absurdist interpretation". Accessory is fairly clear-cut.In other words, though they aren't keeping a wide berth, they were intentionally avoiding a law violation. (Keeping a wide berth is not required by Western concepts of freedom - if anything, people keeping a wide berth of the law at the expense of their own freedoms is considered to be self-censorship, and is a sign that the country isn't all that free).No, they weren't intentionally avoiding a violation of the law. They were ATTEMPTING to avoid a legal violation. This does not mean that they were successful in doing so.In other words, thinness of association is irrevelant, and one can prosecute Google, the computer dealer, most ISPs, all the way to the file sharer's parents (they "insigificantly assisted" in his crime by conceiving our file sharer...) and his computer teacher (who taught him computer skills and "insignificantly assisted" our file sharer's ability to log on the Internet...)!Absolutely the opposite of my point.

The difference between Google and The Pirate Bay is that the latter created a business model whose success hinged upon the illegal activities of its clientele. Hence, they made themselves an accessory to a criminal activity.

This is a fairly clear and easy to understand distinction, and ultimately that difference is the answer to this thread's original question.

Clearly we're not going to agree with one-another on this subject, and I feel we both have presented valid points. Perhaps we should call this debate to a truce at some point? The reason I bring this up is because I believe our debate has exceeded the normalcy regarding controversial subjects here, regarding respect and intellectual integrity. You have made several great points which have given me pause (sometimes of several hours) prior to responding, and for that - kudos to you. While I don't agree with you, I do see where you're coming from and hope I've made my points as well.

In any case, I hope others see how it is possible for opposing sides to debate their views without denigration.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Deal.

[Aramike]

Deal.Good stuff. Again, kudos to you! :salute:

I hope you read my edited comments on the above post, because you responded fairly quickly.