[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.