[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.

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.