[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - again we agree and disagree at the same time.

Yes, PirateBay was likely USED for illegal activity almost all the time. I am not disputing that point. But the question isn't how they were used - because how they were/are used goes back to the pirate that used them, not the hosts themselves. Thats the key. The question is did the founders violate the law in some fashion. The fact that they did not have in their possession any copyrighted or IP protected data means they did not violate the letter of the law. The spirit of it? Maybe - but I have a serious issue with anyone being convicted of a crime because some judge or jury "imparted" their own views to the interpretation of a law. When that happens - justice is no longer the blindfolded weighing of evidence, it becomes the twisting of laws to suit those in power. Which this was.

As to your example of child pornography, that is the example that doesn't apply. To my knowledge, that type of thing (files, data, tapes, pictures, etc) are illegal in every form. As it should be. However, copyrighted material or IP protected data in electronic form is not illegal to have. In fact, we purchase it every time we buy a game, or a music cd, or a DVD movie. There is a big difference to giving people access to material that is illegal to POSSESS in any form, vs material that is commercially available.

If I buy a movie for my kids, then let a friend borrow it for their kid, by your logic I just violated the copyright and should be jailed. Because I made copyright material available to someone who didn't "buy" it. My neighbor has a huge movie collection , and tells everyone in the neighborhood they are welcome to borrow any movies they like. By doing that - he does the same thing as someone providing torrents. Giving access to material they didn't buy, but they can use it. So Aramike, is he committing a crime? Am I if I borrow a DVD to watch Jeff Dunham for a night of laughs with my lady? After all, I didn't buy the movie myself.

Now to be fair, I do realize one difference here - one is borrowing the "data" on disk, meaning he can't use it while I am, where pirate torrents mean people are copying that protected data. However, again - that goes back on the people using the information for illegal purposes. Its the equivilant of them "borrowing" the DVD and making a copy of it on their own. If a neighborhood person did that - they are the criminal, not my neighbor who allowed them access to the data. Its not the access that is illegal - its what you do with it since its commercially available data. Because we are dealing with torrent files, simple flat text really - its even worse because those files aren't even the real data. They are the same thing as him saying "Sure, drop by and pick up whatever you like from the collection". They are not protected data in any form by themselves.

One has to ask, had they not been named what they are, and had they claimed (regardless of reality) the data they provided was to allow legitimate users to gain access to previously purchased data that had been "destroyed" or rendered unusable, would the outcome be the same? I believe so, because this was pushed by DRM folks.

I am not agreeing with their name, or their real purpose. But the fact is that their actions simply do not - at least in the US - constitute a crime. The actions of those that used the indexes for illegal purposes - does. I do not agree with what they did, but my beef here is that the wrong people were prosecuted. Prosecuting people because you don't like what they were doing - when that doing was not truly illegal, is just wrong on principle.

One more example - a personal one - to perhaps put this into perspective. I have my motorcycle endorsement (required to ride a bike in this state) and used to ride ALOT when I was younger. This state also has a helmet law, if you ride, you must "wear an NCDOT approved helmet." I bought an appropriate quarter-helm and printed the general statute, carrying it with me in my back pocket. Then when I went riding, at times I would strap the helmet to my belt, or to my shoulder, instead of my head. Now - yes - I know - not the smartest thing. But the point is when I did that, I was often pulled and ticketed. I held the position that the law said I had to wear the helmet, but it didn't say I had to wear it on my head. Every single time I showed up for court with the General Statute in my hand, the case was tossed because I abided by what the law SAID, not what some state trooper or district attorney "thought it meant".

Make publishing indexes to copyright data illegal - and I would have no problem here. But to prosecute something that isn't illegal per the law, in an attempt to stop a true crime, while ignoring those who actually commit the crime, is just principally wrong in my book, and I will say so every time I see it done.