Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
I just caught this in that jumble of words you posted (the enter key is your friend) and want to respond to it.
This is utter bullshit. I haven't said it's ok to post something you have no right to post, or to download something you have no right to download, or that anyone should get off on a technicality.
What I'm saying, is that trying to hold torrent sites liable for infringement is like trying to hold your ISP, or google, or Dell, or Microsoft responsible because their technology also facilitated your infringement.
By all means go after the people doing something illegal, which is downloading something they don't have a right to view.
The problem you have is with the law, not me, because the law spells out what is and isn't fair or acceptable use. Fair use is what the law says it is, not what you think it ought to be.
You keep giving gideon examples of torrents (like the wolverine workprint) and asking if there's any legal reason that torrent should be allowed to exist. Then, when he gives you one, you accuse him of siding with thieves, when all he did was answer your question based on the case law.
What the fuck?
|
You see I guess that is where I get frustrated. I ask Gideon what he thinks about the Wolverine work print situation and he answers yes and no to the same question. He says no it isn't fair use, but it could be and if they put branding in it they could make money and if a court ruled this way it would be fair use. Then I ask about the Wolverine regular print and he goes off on a tangent about access shifting and this law and that law yet he posts no links to these laws or rulings and how it may or may not be infringing. He posts stats that come from graphs that anyone with basic photoshop skills could make. I could spout off a bunch of stuff and with no proof of it it is meaningless. He says 86% of the people who downloaded the Wolverine work print also paid to see the movie. How does he know this? Did they contact everyone of them and ask them this?
Allow me to make it clear how I fell it should be. Of course this may have nothing to do with how the law really is.
1. Should google be sued for linking to sites like The Pirate Bay? Probably not. They are simply listing the sites they are not linking directly to the torrents.
2. Should sites like The Pirate Bay be held accountable for what they have on the site? Yes. As you said a lot of this is gray area stuff. They are deciding to exist in a gray area. When you do that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you run a site you should be responsible for what is on it. You use the example of porn and you are right, there are many people who hate porn and would like to see it destroyed and all of us thrown in jail. In the past there have been court battles (and there still are court battles today). The porn industry has won some of those battles and lost some of those battles. Over time it has created a legal president. Now you know that if you show pictures of topless or nude women you are probably ok. If you put out movies that show graphic simulated rape or scat then you are edging back into that gray area again and could find yourself in trouble. I feel the same should go for a torrent site. If you decide to link to stuff you know is copyrighted so you know there is a very high probability that people will be bringing you to task for it, that is the risk you take. If the Pirate Bay eventually ends up losing it will set a president that will be used again in other case. The same will happen if The Pirate Bay eventually ends up winning their case. If you operate in a gray area don't be shocked when someone knocks on your door and takes you to court.
3. Should dell, microsoft or companies like that be held liable for helping you get a computer you might do something illegal with? No. As I said before this is like suing a gun manufacturer. There are many people who buy guns and use them legally. Some people will buy guns and use them illegally. You can't hold the manufacturer responsible for that.
4. Should ISPs be held responsible? No. It is much like the answer to number 3. They are simply providing a broad based service, what you do with is up to you.
So then you might be saying what is the difference? Why do you not go after ISPs or Dell or a gun maker or Google, but you want to go after a torrent site? Here is the difference. A torrent site links directly to the torrents and torrent sites directly facilitate the downloading of copyrighted materials. It is that simple. The people that run these sites know they are helping people break the law and the people on there know they are breaking the law. No, not every single person using the site breaks the law. No, I have no idea what percentage of the downloads are illegal. This then brings us back to the question of how much illegal activity is acceptable in a modern society? Anyone who thinks that there are not a lot of people illegally downloading torrents off these sites are fooling themselves. Just go to the sites themselves and you will see for yourself. There are comments all over them with people saying they will never pay for a game or song or movie again or claiming they are pirate for life or bragging about seeding the movie they just downloaded 24/7.
Since this is all in a gray area I guess over the next handful of years we will hash this out in court. I have never said every torrent site needs to be torn down. But those that facilitate illegal activity should be taken to task for their actions.