Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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?