backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by Boingo Twang.. on Feb 28 at 1:05 PM


  (Source: Tropiganda)
To "approve" of piracy is to lawbreak: world's top torrent site is found guilty of speechcrime

The world's top torrent site The Pirate Bay has long struggled with legal issues [1][2][3].  It thought it left those problems behind when it switched from physically hosting torrents to hosting only magnet links to downloadable torrents.  But an ardently pro-big media British justice has turned up the heat on the site, accusing it of thoughtcrime and speechcrime.

I. Judge Rules The Pirate Bay is Guilty of "Thoughtcrime"

The Hon. Mr. Justice Richard David Arnold, 51, a member of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division, and long standing QC ("Queen's Counsel") ruled that the site's decision to "approve" of piracy was in and of itself illegal. 

In a lawsuit brought against very British internet service providers by the nation's top music labels, Justice Arnold rules:

In my judgment, the operators of TPB do authorise its users' infringing acts of copying and communication to the public. They go far beyond merely enabling or assisting. On any view, they "sanction, approve and countenance" the infringements of copyright committed by its users. But in my view they also purport to grant users the right to do the acts complained of. It is no defence that they openly defy the rights of the copyright owners. I would add that I consider the present case to be indistinguishable from 20C Fox v Newzbin in this respect. If anything, it is a stronger case.

In the present case, the matters I have considered in relation to authorisation lead to the conclusion that the operators of TPB induce, incite or persuade its users to commit infringements of copyright, and that they and the users act pursuant to a common design to infringe. It is also relevant in this regard that the operators profit from their activities. Thus they are jointly liable for the infringements committed by users.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that both users and the operators of TPB infringe the copyrights of the Claimants (and those they represent) in the UK.

In other words, employees of The Pirate Bay wrote something seemingly in favor of piracy -- or critical of "big media" -- which coupled with the facts that they post links directing users to files -- which may or may not be illegally shared -- they're automatically guilty of copyright infringement.

Essentially the ruling finds the website guilty of thoughtcrime (by the fact that the administrators do "approve" of piracy, a belief) and speechcrime (allowing/encouraging users to post written links to infringing content -- induction and incitement).

Justice Arnold, appointed in 2008, has been a key friend of big media, moving aggressively in 2011 to force British ISPs to block Newzbin, a forums site which movie and music studios claimed was promoting piracy.  Like The Pirate Bay, Newzbin didn't contain any actual content, but merely indexed (allowed links) to a variety of content -- some of which indeed may have been infringed.

Judge Arnold
Justice Richard Arnold is a key ally of big media in British court.
[Image Source: 11 South Square]

The British Justice authored a book titled Performers' Rights.

While he has generally sided with big media in piracy cases, Justice Arnold did last year earn the appreciation of at least one major internet player when he ruled in eBay, Inc. (EBAY) of civil liability in a counterfeiting case brought by French cosmetics manufacturer L'Oreal (ETR:OR).

II. British Gov't Vows War on Piracy, But Allows Big Media to Pirate

The Pirate Bay civil ruling clears the way for the music labels in the suit to force Britain's top internet service providers to block The Pirate Bay.  For now, this will likely not effect the site's accessibility in the nation much, given that the site's compaction thanks to ditching torrents and switching to magnet links has allowed for easy mirroring by volunteers worldwide.

Ultimately, though the ruling could serve as a prelude to steep fines or even criminal penalties against citizens who host the site, and in doing so commit the same "thoughtcrime" and "speechcrime" the site was found guilty of.

The Pirate Bay
Britain's top music labels are allowed to pirate independent artists' works for profit, but The Pirate Bay is poised to be banned for simply supporting filesharing.  [Image Source: ByteLove]

Britain is well known for its extreme copyright enforcement.  Britain's RIAA equivalent -- the Performing Right Society (PRS) -- threatened to sue a grocery store employee for singing in public, and only backed down after public outcry.  The British government has attempted to push a $1B USD equivalent of the U.S. controversial SOPA; meanwhile British courts endorsed music labels' cash-or-we'll-sue letter writting campaing, which sought protection fees from 30,000 UK citizens.

British officials have also joined the U.S. in pushing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a copyright pact, drafted in secret, that enacts new penalties for  filesharing.  The nation's government has also tried several times to enact a policy that would force ISPs to terminate users who pirate after "three strikes".

The Pirate Bay, in response to the loss in the Chancery High Court case, parroted and mocked the English Justice's ruling, writing:

In my judgment, the courts of [United Kingdom of Censorship] do authorise its judges' acts of corruption and being technically uneducated. They go far beyond merely enabling and assisting.

I conclude that both judges' and the politicians of [United Kingdom of Censorship] infringe the rights of the people... in the world.

Ironically, there is some validity to those accusations.

Britain is among the nations whose laws allow big media to "claim" the works of independent artists, pirating them for-profit, without fear of legal recourse. Independent musicians must plead with the member corporations for their cut, a process that can often take years.  The scheme pulls in hundreds of millions globally for big media corporations in the U.S., Britain, Canada, and elsewhere.

Aside from killing public piracy while preserving loopholes for their own seizure of copyrighted content, big media's other major objective is to ban backup copies.  That would allow them to execute their ultimate goal of expanding users "choices", by forcing them to repurchase content they already own.  Top media corporations contend that making backups of CDs or DVDs you legally own is akin to "stealing" a copy via piracy or petty theft.

Sources: High Court of Justice Chancery Division, The Pirate Bay



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I should be arrested...
By overlandpark4me on 2/22/2012 1:22:54 AM , Rating: 5
....because the thought crime I had of the girl next door would probably get me banned from her prom..




RE: I should be arrested...
By Ticholo on 2/22/2012 6:11:38 AM , Rating: 4
You thoughtful criminal, you.

On the other hand, now that Iran abolished stoning of women for adultery maybe it is acceptable to use stoning as punishment for thought crime over here? (here = NA + EU, you know, the paragons of Human Progress *looks inspiringly up and slightly to the side while flags wave behind him*)


RE: I should be arrested...
By superunknown98 on 2/22/2012 8:58:57 AM , Rating: 1
This whole, prosecuting site owners that have links to infringing material reminds me of strippers. You can't make the stripper the criminal when some disorderly guy/lady inappropriately gropes him/her on stage. The downloaders need to take responsibility for their actions.


RE: I should be arrested...
By icemansims on 2/22/2012 10:26:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The uploaders need to take responsibility for their actions.


There, fixed it for you.


RE: I should be arrested...
By Solandri on 2/22/2012 1:07:26 PM , Rating: 3
No, despite attempts by the *AA to redefine what's going on, the uploaders aren't the problem. There are lots of things you can do with copyrighted content without actually owning it or buying it. You can make parodies of it. You can excerpt clips from it to make a review of the movie you saw in the theater. You can resample small parts of it to incorporate into your own song/movie. A teacher can show it in the classroom for educational purposes. And (though it hasn't yet been tested in court) I grabbed the songs from a CD I owned which had been scratched beyond playability.

If you ban uploading, you ban all these legitimate uses of file sharing as well. The problem isn't with uploading. It's with people downloading stuff to use for illegitimate purposes. The *AA is just trying to recharacterize it as an uploading problem since they don't like Fair Use, and getting rid of uploading not only stops illegal downloading, it also stops Fair Use.


RE: I should be arrested...
By adiposity on 2/22/2012 5:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have it backwards. Downloaders are not the problem, either. Let's ignore for a minute the fact that downloaders often are simultaneously uploaders with current protocols.

The downloaders are simply accessing content that is made available to them. As a lay person, it may even be difficult to discern what video files are legally available and which are illegal streams. Are we going to make the person trying to watch a video the criminal, when these videos are often available for free, legally?

It is true that, for the industry, the problem is the downloader who chooses to download rather than purchase, license, or watch ads. But this is only a percentage of downloaders, the actual number being unknown. And it should be subtracted from those who download, want a better experience, and then purchase in the future. However, this is all beside the point.

If the goal is to stop downloaders, the obvious problem is those who provide the file initially (the uploaders). The saying "the cat's out of the bag" illustrates why it is ridiculous to make the downloaders the problem. Any type of illegal activity, whether it is drug use, weapon use, or information dissemination, must focus on the source, not the final recipients.

Yes, the industry isn't happy about the downloading. But the goal is to stop those who make it possible.


RE: I should be arrested...
By masamasa on 2/22/2012 11:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
You dirty dog...you.


Not a thought crime
By brandoj on 2/21/2012 11:06:28 PM , Rating: 1
The headline is pretty misleading by calling solicitation (i.e. inducing another to commit an unlawful act with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the act) a "thought crime." The judge is just pointing out that TBP had the specific intent for its users to commit acts of copyright infringement by virtue of the language they use and the profit they receive from those underlying acts. As an example of solicitation, if you put out an ad sincerely encouraging readers to murder your wife because you want to steal away with your mistress, you will likely be arrested and it won't be because you committed a thought crime. The judge in your case would likely point to the words you used in your ad and the benefit to you if and when the act was carried out in order to establish "specific intent" that the recipients of the ad murder your wife.

This holds true in civil cases - if you induce another to cause harm, you can be jointly liable for resulting damages. The debate we should be having is whether copyright law in its current form has outlived its welcome altogether.




RE: Not a thought crime
By augiem on 2/22/2012 12:45:24 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
the operators of TPB induce, incite or persuade its users to commit infringements of copyright, and that they and the users act pursuant to a common design to infringe.


It sounds to me exactly what the police/FBI have been doing in sting operations for years. That would also make the police guilty of buying drugs, stealing cars, selling weapons, etc. (I personally think stings are an abuse of power trying to entrap citizens.)


RE: Not a thought crime
By XZerg on 2/22/2012 1:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
Just while reading that quote, i thought:

ummm... most women these days induce some funky feelings in men with the way the dress... maybe they ought to be responsible for the men's action?

Just an analogy of these retarded logic, at least wordings.


RE: Not a thought crime
By Theoz on 2/22/2012 1:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't see this comment before posting my own below. This is not a thought crime whatsoever. This is action with intent, the basic underpinnings of numerous causes of action under our justice system, murder and theft to name two. For instance, accidentally killing someone isn't murder; it is another crime punished less severely. If you kill with intent to kill, then you have crossed over to murder.


Buying vs "stealing/sharing"
By I1ilan on 2/22/2012 5:14:35 AM , Rating: 1
If they gonna reduce the prices for a new products(original BlueRays,DVDs etc).The piracy is no longer an issue.Is It?
We need to focus on the CAUSE not the outcome.




RE: Buying vs "stealing/sharing"
By Ticholo on 2/22/2012 6:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know if they're partial to such carefully constructed arguments.

But, while I agree with the main gist of your post (as far as I understand it), high prices aren't the cause of piracy. Not the sole cause and I'll bet that for a large part not even the major one.


RE: Buying vs "stealing/sharing"
By ppardee on 2/23/2012 12:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
Price is a large part of it, but so is the delivery method. I would MUCH rather download a movie/game/song than run out to a store that may or may not have it, deal with the stupid people in the parking lot, the stupid people in the aisle, the stupid people in the check-out line, the stupid cashier and then the stupid people in the parking lot again.

I will not pirate a movie that I can watch on Netflix. If I could access games the same way, I would. I (generally) won't pirate a game that is available for purchase/download via Steam. (I say generally because often times I will pay for a game and it is crap.. yes, I am looking at you Dead Island... so I will pirate a game if I'm not sure it will be awesome, then buy it if it is awesome and available via Steam. If the games weren't $5 instead of $50, I wouldn't do that.)


Can You Say... 1984?
By Amaterasu on 2/22/2012 2:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I know it's passed, that infamous year immortalized in George Orwell's novel by the same name, but every day We see more and more that suggests that it is being used as a blueprint.

Here is just the latest!

"Thoughtcrime" is a BAD thing! Don't think crimeful thoughts! Shall We now see the Thought Police?

Seriously, read (or reread) 1984. It will send chills down Your back!

Let's END this power elite madness by eliminating the need for money through abundant energy! Read more here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-releas...




RE: Can You Say... 1984?
By ppardee on 2/22/2012 5:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
1984 isn't being used as a blueprint. Orwell was just very good at predicting the future.

Energy isn't the only thing we need money for. Money (profits specifically) are the only way for consumers to communicate effectively with producers on a large scale. If a dairy farm is producing more milk and less yogurt than the public wants, they will see supplies of yogurt drop while profits from yogurt increase, and milk supplies remain stagnant while losing profits on the wasted, un-purchased milk.

Moreover, if there were a cheap easy way to produce massive amounts of energy, the people who desire profits would snatch it up. The profits are the motivation to innovate and to improve the life of consumers.

What you NEED to fight is corruption/immorality, and that is done first on a community level and pushed up the chain. Once people start focusing on the morality in their personal lives, then city, then state, we can start focusing on the federal level. You need to fight lazy immoral individuals, not the 'elite'. The elite are relatively powerless against masses of like-minded individuals. (see Egypt et al.)


Proof positive
By Motoman on 2/22/2012 10:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
...that, like the US, apparently their legal system is also utterly corrupt and needs to be completely disbanded and rebuilt from scratch.

While it's eminently clear that PB has always thumbed their noses at the MAFIAA et al, it's also mind-bendingly obvious that they're not the ones committing any crimes. To wit:

Say you own a nice chunk of land. You put up some gazebos, picnic tables, swingsets, etc. and make it available to the public as a park, free for all to use.

Some people come there with their kids to just enjoy a nice summer day...have a lunch, play frisbee, etc. Good times.

Other people hang out there to sell weed...maybe a little crack. Pimp their sister once in a while. Stuff that's clearly illegal.

Who is at fault for the crimes committed? According to this judge...the landowner. Which is abysmally stupid...the landowner isn't the one committing any crimes...the criminals are the ones selling drugs and pimping hos. EVEN IF the landowner publicly makes fun of the laws that outlaw the sale of drugs and prostitution. He's not the one doing it.

Arrest and prosecute the criminals, not the landowner. Oh, it's *hard* to actually track down the criminals is it? Easier just to file charges against the landowner and make it look like you're "tough on crime?"

Too bad. That doesn't make you "tough on crime." That makes you an ineffectual arm of justice by letting the criminals off the hook and punishing others for their crimes.




REALLY?!
By DrChemist on 2/22/2012 11:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
If such is the ruling, he has laid ground work for Google to be found guilty of the same, and all users and advertisers with Google infringe upon copyrights.

This is very very touchy ground that he is playing around. This ruling could prove costly for a large facet of the internet being sued and found guilty for similar reasons in the UK. This will open the flood gates.




Seems rather presumptuous
By Boingo Twang on 2/28/2012 1:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
...to accuse of anyone hosting a magnet link to a torrent of being a copyright violator. It's as if the judge assumes all torrents in and of themselves are copyrighted material. Nothing could be further from the truth.




Time to get real
By Beenthere on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By EricMartello on 2/21/2012 10:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
They're not facilitating piracy; they're allowing people to share media with each other.

File Sharing =/= Piracy

The copyright laws are unjust and not in the best interests of the people, and therefore are null and void. Anyone who attempts to impose and/or enforce unjust laws would be guilty of treason. It's that simple. If you're willing to roll over and allow public officials to abuse or misuse their power, you are just as guilty of treason as they are in my opinion.


RE: Time to get real
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/21/2012 11:09:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The copyright laws are unjust and not in the best interests of the people, and therefore are null and void. Anyone who attempts to impose and/or enforce unjust laws would be guilty of treason. It's that simple. If you're willing to roll over and allow public officials to abuse or misuse their power, you are just as guilty of treason as they are in my opinion.

This, and also there's the issue of people in glass houses throwing stones.

I find it funny that the major record labels have themselves essentially admitted to pirating hundreds of millions in content. In Canada they had to pay independent artists a settlement $45M USD, after stealing their work for years. But in the U.S. and Britain, the legal code has largely allowed them to do this without fear of prosecution.

And Hollywood, for all its talk of "compensating artists", typically is allowed to engage in accounting practices that would get people in other sectors thrown in prison. By billing themselves, they can make hidden profits, while showing net losses, hence screwing the majority of actors out of ever receiving royalties, even on famous work. Just ask the guy who played Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi.

I guess all those threats and bribes to Congresspeople are paying off??

I'm not pro-piracy, but I'm anti-hypocrisy.


RE: Time to get real
By messele on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By seamonkey79 on 2/22/2012 7:18:27 AM , Rating: 3
The situation being talked about is the group of actors that sign up for a lower 'wage' and a higher percentage of the profits from the movie, which is then so atrociously mathed out that a movie that cost $150,000,000 to make, sold $500,000,000 in ticket sales, lost $75,000,000, eliminating any percentage that the actors in the movie signed up for.


RE: Time to get real
By Solandri on 2/22/2012 1:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Time to get real
By Beenthere on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By ShieTar on 2/22/2012 9:02:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
98% of society supports copyright laws. Only the vocal minority are in denial about copyright laws.


And yet those 2% that disagree are about to ruin the movie industry? And justify that that industry sets aside billions to buy new laws?

I am 34 years old, and I have yet to meet a single person that has never in their life copied a movie or music CD, pages out of a book, recorded a television show or put their kid into a mickey mouse costume without written agreement from the disney corporation.

Here in germany, we even pay a fixed fee on every copy machine, CD/DVD writer and even external harddrive, which is handed over to the Print, Music and Movie Industries. The law for this was justified by statistics that showed that basically everybody will use these devices for copyright infringements. And there never were too many protests against these fees, because nobody really disagrees with this assumption.

Of course the act of copying itself remains illegal, even after you paid your fees.


RE: Time to get real
By Kurz on 2/22/2012 9:51:39 AM , Rating: 2
So whats the point of collecting the added fee?
Crimanalizing your people before they did anything wrong and still hitting them with fines and jail time... Wow what a free country.


RE: Time to get real
By nafhan on 2/22/2012 10:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
Further, pretending that 98% of people care or understand much of anything about copyright is ridiculous. People want content, and generally as long as the copyright nonsense doesn't impact them, they don't care about it.


RE: Time to get real
By Gondor on 2/22/2012 9:51:44 AM , Rating: 1
Aren't you the clown from the Xbitlabs website ?


RE: Time to get real
By Theoz on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/22/2012 4:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This may be the stupidest comment I have ever read on this site. Congrats!

Actually you misunderstood the symbol "=/=" whose context determines whether it means "never equals" or "does not always equal".

You can argue

(?i:Filesharing(i) == piracy)> (?j:Filesharing(j) != piracy)
i.e. "Filesharing is typically piracy."

(?i:Filesharing(i) == piracy)< (?j:Filesharing(j) != piracy)
i.e. "Filesharing is typically not piracy."

But in either instance you can say

Filesharing =/= Piracy

...due to the fact that it does not ALWAYS piracy. (For example, World of Warcraft shared legitimate updates via torrent -- authorized by Blizzard Activision. And multiple universities use torrents to share files with students.)

Please read:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64651.htm...

Again, you are very opinionated, which I appreciate, but if you're going to go blasting readers for their comments, please be sure you understand the fundamental concepts involved, e.g. in this case symbolic logic.
quote:
Copyright law is clearly within the best interest of the people because it encourages the creation of creative works by allowing authors of these works to profit from them. Do we always implement copyright law perfectly? Of course not, but the basic underpinnings should be supported and should include classifying the sharing of copyrighted materials as piracy.

Again, you misunderstood his point. His point was that there is a great deal of legitimate filesharing. Your misunderstanding of his symbolic logic skewed your response.


RE: Time to get real
By Theoz on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Time to get real
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/23/2012 7:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Consequently, I vehemently disagree that I was to interpret his point as that "there is a great deal of legitimate file sharing." If that were actually his point, he would not have made the preposterous statement that copyright law should be generally null and void. No one has ever made the point that copyright law should extend to legitimate file sharing, however, the effects of some laws (SOPA/PIPA) have had the effect that some legitimate file sharing would be chilled.

I would assume he's advocating a rewrite of copyright law. Operating under that assumption, you can agree or not agree -- that's the nature of democracy.

My personally perspective is that creators need to be protected and thieves need to be punished.

That said, there's a huge consistency problem under the current system in that large corporate interest can seize the copyrighted works of small independent artists. Further, the punishments regarding file sharing are overly punitive and need to be brought back down to Earth.

I don't think it'd be practical to throw out copyright or patent laws, but I think a rewrite on some problem areas (see above) would be common sense.


RE: Time to get real
By cmdrdredd on 2/21/2012 10:46:30 PM , Rating: 3
You missed the point. This is EXACTLY what we said would happen with SOPA and ACTA. If you have ANY items that link outside and that site happens to have something deemed to violate copyright then YOU are targeted and shut down.

It's pretty ridiculous. This is the same as some site hosting links to clips of a TV show people are interested in and being shut down for it when they don't even host any of it at all.

Did you miss the part where the British Government actually brought a suit against someone for singing in public? You think that's ok? There's nothing wrong with that? Government is not overstepping?


RE: Time to get real
By bigboxes on 2/21/2012 10:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
How about you get real? The punishment you want for copyright infringement is not needed, not right and not going to happen. Troll on.


More Sensationalist Reporting...
By Theoz on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: More Sensationalist Reporting...
By Theoz on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: More Sensationalist Reporting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/22/2012 4:48:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This isn't a thought crime. It is extremely incorrect to characterize inducement and incitement as a thought crime. These are acts, not thoughts. Actively operating a website that assists users in infringing copyrights is the crime here (an action crime), not the mere thought of creating a website to do so (a thought crime).

You did not read my commentary carefully or understand it.

Inducement and incitement is speechcrime , which I mention in the story.

Essentially you tell someone to do something, how to do something, etc., then they actually perform the criminal act, and both of you get in trouble -- them for their criminal action, and you for your criminal speech (which can include the written word).

The part I explicitly refer to as thoughtcrime is in the fact that the judge characterizes the guilt of the website based on the fact that it (in his mind) does "approve" of pirating copyrighted works. "Approve" does not refer to a specific action -- it refers to a personal thought/belief.

So to derive guilt from the fact that someone does "approve" of something is explicitly to accuse one of a thoughtcrime (also potentially you could call it a "beliefcrime").

Again you can argue whether speechcrime and/or thoughtcrime based guilt assignment is valid or justified, but that does not change the fact that I am calling a duck a duck.

And to give a valid example of why this decision is questionable, Google directs people to a variety of torrent-related sites, engines, and postings. You can Google search a specific phrase -- including a copyrighted work plus the word "torrent" -- and it will come up with a webpage containing that torrent.

Thus, while it is certainly possible to argue induction and incitement by TBP, it shows a degree of bias to do so without also charging Google with the same offense.

The validity of this methodology must obviously be considered by the citizens of any free nation, and asserted to their relevant lawmakers.
quote:
More highly inaccurate reporting to drum up support for a personal stance. Again, I request that you please change the article to make it more neutral and less inaccurate.
More poor reading skills on your part, leading to rudeness and ranting. Apologies to your fellow readers that they are burdened by your trolling.


RE: More Sensationalist Reporting...
By Theoz on 2/22/2012 6:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
You still have it wrong. It's not the speech that makes you guilty, it's the intent coupled with the action. The speech is merely possible evidence of intent. As in any other crime, intent can be inferred based on the circumstances.

Here is an example of a speech crime: a speech crime is being arrested for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. It doesn't matter if you were joking or not, the words themselves are the crime.

In this case, TPB could "sanction, approve and countenance" all they want. It was the combination of the "enabling and assisting" infringement with their website with the sanctioning and approving that made them guilty. The approval is indicated by evidence (speech, purpose of the website, general attitude toward copyright infringement, etc.). If you are reading the judge's decision that the guilt came entirely from the approving of infringement then you are reading his decision incorrectly. He is using the approval to infer the intent prong. Two elements 1) action (operating the website) 2) intent (sanction or approve the infringement). They can't be guilty of the crime without both elements.

Your google example is poor because google's website has a myriad of alternative noninfringing uses. In contrast TPB's website exists primarily to host copyrighted works and promote infringement. In the US, the best legal example is the Sony tape recorder case that went to the supreme court many years ago. The reason Sony was not guilty of copyright infringement was because their device was capable of substantial noninfringing uses.


RE: More Sensationalist Reporting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/23/2012 8:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You still have it wrong. It's not the speech that makes you guilty, it's the intent coupled with the action. The speech is merely possible evidence of intent. As in any other crime, intent can be inferred based on the circumstances.

Here is an example of a speech crime: a speech crime is being arrested for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. It doesn't matter if you were joking or not, the words themselves are the crime.

In this case, TPB could "sanction, approve and countenance" all they want. It was the combination of the "enabling and assisting" infringement with their website with the sanctioning and approving that made them guilty. The approval is indicated by evidence (speech, purpose of the website, general attitude toward copyright infringement, etc.). If you are reading the judge's decision that the guilt came entirely from the approving of infringement then you are reading his decision incorrectly. He is using the approval to infer the intent prong. Two elements 1) action (operating the website) 2) intent (sanction or approve the infringement). They can't be guilty of the crime without both elements.

Your google example is poor because google's website has a myriad of alternative noninfringing uses. In contrast TPB's website exists primarily to host copyrighted works and promote infringement. In the US, the best legal example is the Sony tape recorder case that went to the supreme court many years ago. The reason Sony was not guilty of copyright infringement was because their device was capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
Their action was allowing a forum for the written word -- a form of speech. People were able to post written links, which direct people to torrent download servers and written text descriptions.

Again the ONLY action TBP took was to provide a searchable forum that allowed writing (speech), including actionable web links. Was that speech in support of piracy? Absolutely. But again this is speech.

quote:
He is using the approval to infer the intent prong. Two elements 1) action (operating the website) 2) intent (sanction or approve the infringement). They can't be guilty of the crime without both elements.
He was using "approval" as a means of proving guilt, as even you seemingly admit. To "approve" is to hold a thought. Hence this aspect is thoughtcrime -- guilt for your thoughts and personal beliefs.

But as for your point of operating a website, operating a website is not inherently criminal. Hence -- again -- their only "action" that violates civil code is allow users the freedom and tools to express themselves via writing, including posting web links and posting descriptions of copyrighted works. Thus they are permitting unwanted forms of speech, hence this is an instance where the ruling is based on speechcrime.

Under the CURRENT TBP policies (of magnet links only), if TBP is taking any other action besides writing, and hosting a platform where other users can post writing (including actionable links), please let me know . (Aside from the physical hosting of torrents, which they are phasing out.) If not, the ruling is fundamentally based on speechcrime and thoughtcrime, as I state above, no matter how you dussy it up.

Again you seemingly admit that TBP's crimes revolve around writing, but then you seek to creatively redefine this prosecution over writing away from the area of speechcrime.

Again the only way I can see that you would define this otherwise is if you argue that post URLs is not a form of speech. As a person with experience covering internet technology, I would argue that it is, whether or not the specific legal precedent in some certain region sees it as such.
quote:
Your google example is poor because google's website has a myriad of alternative noninfringing uses. In contrast TPB's website exists primarily to host copyrighted works and promote infringement.
That's patently not true. The Pirate Bay can be and is used to carry written descriptions and links to a great deal of legal, non-infringed work as well.

Like Google, who scrapes user-links via crawling and then compiles that speech into new actionable written descriptions, the TBP allows users to post such descriptions first-hand.

Whether those descriptions on either platform lead to infringed content is the purview of the users, not the site.
quote:
Here is an example of a speech crime: a speech crime is being arrested for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. It doesn't matter if you were joking or not, the words themselves are the crime.

One further point on this. Big media interests have stated time and time again that simply posting a link (or hosting one) to infringed content is a (speech)crime.

This was one of their primary motivations in pushing SOPA/PIPA, ACTA, and its foreign equivalents.

Hence the practice of posting a link and description to infringed content narrowly meets your criteria of speechcrime.

And TBP's platform in allowing the mass posting of such links and descriptions, amounts to the commission of numerous speechcrimes -- AS DEFINED by the lawyers for large record labels and film studios.


RE: More Sensationalist Reporting...
By Theoz on 2/23/2012 8:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
I don't seem to admit that the approval lead to guilt, I explicitly admit it. Since you didn't get it before: they needed the approval for guilt. Like I said though, you can't have guilt without the added prong of the action which was aiding and abetting copyright infringement. Approval alone would not have been enough for guilt. If approval alone had been enough then you could righfully say this was a thought crime or speech crime. But it wasn't, so you can't.

What I object to is your mischaracterization of this as a speech crime or thought crime. By your definition murder is a thought crime and solicitation for murder is a speech crime because elements of the crime are what someone objectively thought or actually said. You are using the wrong definitions and doing so makes your story very inaccurate because you make it seem like TPB got nailed for the approval with nothing more, which is blatantly wrong.

Please show me evidence of google aiding and abetting copyright infringement in the same way and I will be happy to acknowledge your example.


By JasonMick (blog) on 2/23/2012 12:26:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What I object to is your mischaracterization of this as a speech crime or thought crime. By your definition murder is a thought crime and solicitation for murder is a speech crime because elements of the crime are what someone objectively thought or actually said. You are using the wrong definitions and doing so makes your story very inaccurate because you make it seem like TPB got nailed for the approval with nothing more, which is blatantly wrong.

Solicitation of murder under certain VERY specific circumstances, could be considered a form of speechcrime, assuming no money is involved. For example, if I said someone should die and I gave their address, then you could argue I committed a speechcrime (Much like yelling "fire" in the theater... I provided information that led to criminality or chaos.) In this case note, no direct payment or quid pro quo is involved.

If money or quid quo pro is used to pay someone to do a crime, which you solicit via speech, then it becomes a direct financial action.

By contrast TBP did not pay users to infringe, nor did it directly receive payment from them. Thus in essence, in a broad definition, it is a speechcrime.
quote:
By your definition murder is a thought crime and solicitation for murder is a speech crime because elements of the crime are what someone objectively thought or actually said. You are using the wrong definitions and doing so makes your story very inaccurate because you make it seem like TPB got nailed for the approval with nothing more, which is blatantly wrong.

Again, I did not say that. I said that it "got nailed" to borrow your wording, for:
a) Approval (thoughtcrime)
b) Giving users a platform for speech (providing actionable links and descriptions) (speechcrime)

Again, TBP did not directly host pirated works or pirate them itself. Thus it's merely offering users descriptions of how to commit crime and hence is committing a form of civil speechcrime, with the court lumping in thoughtcrime in proving intent.

I disagree with using someone's opinions to prove intent, as again, I feel this is thoughtcrime. A person should be judged solely on their actions. But that's my personal opinion/analysis.
quote:
Please show me evidence of google aiding and abetting copyright infringement in the same way and I will be happy to acknowledge your example.

Okidoke.

Google search

Search "Age of Apocalypse torrent"

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=MINL-p_u...

Top results:
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/4061845
...
http://torrentz.eu/7ccd33a846bf9a2af0c5e2b4a31ebc4...
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/162563149/?tab=...
http://kat.ph/age-of-apocalypse-complete-run-t5941...

Google does at least as good a job collecting worldwide torrents as TBP does. If you want to search for torrents, use Google.

"I don't usually use torrents for piracy, but when I do I prefer to find them on Google." -- The World's Most Interesting Man


Dailytech?
By kyleb2112 on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Dailytech?
By Camikazi on 2/22/2012 9:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
It does say Blog on this one which kind of does make it an opinion piece.


RE: Dailytech?
By Omega215D on 2/22/2012 2:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's a link to his blog. You'll see there's a separate bar on the side for Latest Blog Post. This is in the DT articles section.


RE: Dailytech?
By Theoz on 2/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: Dailytech?
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/22/2012 4:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yep, and it's getting worse by the day. Jason, neutral reporting of the news in one article and diary entries in another please - as opposed to merging them both into a single article like this one.

If you guys disagree with the points I raise, why don't you debate them rather than attacking my credibility or the article's credibility.

Take a debate class -- character defamation is a weak form of argumentation.

Assuming you have a valid point, you are certainly not representing it with such trite and meaningless attacks. Actually, you are weakening whatever legitimate criticism you may have with the piece, by making your critique seem founded upon irrational dislike.


RE: Dailytech?
By ppardee on 2/22/2012 5:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
character defamation is a weak form of argumentation.

You are the kind of person who would say something like that...

I think the issue comes from the blogs being posted on the home page. They take this as straight journalism rather than an informative editorial. I don't think taking the articles off the home page is a good option, but maybe adding an op/ed tag across the image with keep people's undergarments from bunching uncomfortably.

Although the red accents the comments section quite nicely.


RE: Dailytech?
By Theoz on 2/22/2012 5:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're employing massive obfuscation here. Our comments have nothing to do with the points raised in your article or the correctness of those points, or even the points you raise. Neither can I see any sort of "character defamation" in either comment. I could agree with all of the points raised in the article and then write the exact same comment with the exact same reasoning. If you want to write an op/ed piece write it in a separate piece. Don't intermix news with your personal opinion in a single piece and then call it news. Anecdotal evidence of the comments to your articles indicates to me that most of your readers do not know where the news ends and the commentary begins. I don't see how I could be more clear and resort less to character attacks than I have been. Write two separate articles rather than one "news" article that is extremely laced with personal opinion.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki