Thought for the day - If the Pirate bay is guilty, where does that leave Google?

[Taygoo]

yeah..

It is a wierd world.

If you say

Pirate bay is guitly, to share links, so a person can get an movie, game or something else... It is not PB fault that, people share illegal files. There is no filter..
But if it is...
So what about google, yahoo, msn, and other search funktions?
And what about the browsers, that makes people abble to see those sites?
And what about the internet, it would not be possible with out the internet?

Now..if the person who did find out about gunpower, or did make the pistol.
Should that person get arrested, and hanged - because other people can use his idea to hurt, kill, some other person?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[CaptainHaplo]

Taygoo.... interesting point.

So since Al Gore invented the internet - shouldnt he be charged as an accessory to every crime that has ever involved the internet?

Everything from file sharing to child molestations to that guy that killed women that advertised on whatever list that was....

Where is the outrage??????

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Aramike

And yet Google is in, vast majority, used to legit searches while Pirate Bay was the opposite.

Seems pretty cut and dry.

That is not entirely true, a heck of a lot of people use Google to search for pirated material (music, movies, cracks, serials, key generators, etc), in fact I would say its the number 1 site for such searches. Pirate Bay also does have plenty of legitimate torrents as well as pirated material. The key point is that neither group filters the content they offer, and you can find "warez" just as easily through both search sites.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

That is not entirely true, a heck of a lot of people use Google to search for pirated material (music, movies, cracks, serials, key generators, etc), in fact I would say its the number 1 site for such searches. Pirate Bay also does have plenty of legitimate torrents as well as pirated material. The key point is that neither group filters the content they offer, and you can find "warez" just as easily through both search sites.

Correct answer right here.

-S

[antikristuseke]

Well, i'll be damned. Agreeing with SUBMAN1 again, the end must be near.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

That is not entirely true, a heck of a lot of people use Google to search for pirated material (music, movies, cracks, serials, key generators, etc), in fact I would say its the number 1 site for such searches. Pirate Bay also does have plenty of legitimate torrents as well as pirated material. The key point is that neither group filters the content they offer, and you can find "warez" just as easily through both search sites.

I'm quite certain that pirated materials are no where near the top of the list of things searched for using Google. I'm pretty sure that "lyrics" and "myspace" leads the pack.

In any case, this isn't anything like the situation with gun manufacturers. Of course no one but the shooter is responsible for the use of the gun. But, what if, say, the dealer explicitly implied that the guns they sell should be used for illegal purposes?

That wouldn't be legal. And that's what Pirate Bay did. You all DID know the site was founded by an anti-copyright group, right?

[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.

[Aramike]

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?

[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.

[Taygoo]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Taygoo.... interesting point.

So since Al Gore invented the internet - shouldnt he be charged as an accessory to every crime that has ever involved the internet?

Well I don't think so.. but ask the judges