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:Either this statement is true or it is not, regardless of the morality of the situation.

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.

Thanks for conceding that they intended to and WERE indeed passing through a clear passage.
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?

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".

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.

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...

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?

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

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.

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?

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).

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?

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

...which is rendered irrelevent by the fact that the perps were clearly attempting to circumvent a law which they were clearly aware of.Please demonstrate how the ruling in question is an "absurdist interpretation". Accessory is fairly clear-cut.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.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.

Deal.

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

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