Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
I will admit this much. I didn't follow the case day by day. I don't know what evidence was submitted and what evidence wasn't. Clearly there was enough evidence put forth that they were found guilty. Here is something I took from an article that quotes the verdict, "By providing a site with, as the district court found, sophisticated search functions, easy upload and storage, and a website linked to the tracker," the defendants were guilty of assisting copyright infringement," the court said.
That seems pretty cut and dry to me. Again, I go back to the Wolverine example. They linked to it, they knew it was illegal. With that they helped foster and encouraged illegal activity.
Do they have legal torrents on that site? Yes. Are there people legally downloading stuff from that site? Yes. But are they also providing a service that encourages and helps people break the law? Yes.
Go to the site now and search for the wolverine movie. Guess what you find? Links still to it. That, in my eyes, is breaking the law.
Yes, every fair use case operated in the gray area before a ruling one way or the other. The Pirate Bay is one of those people and this time the law went against them. That is how it works when you operate in a gray area. Sometimes you are vindicated and found to be right and other times you lose. If you decide to walk that tightrope you can't be surprised when it falls.
The wolverine movie is not being time shifted. It is not being backed up. There is no legal way someone should be downloading. Each and every person who downloads it is breaking the law The Pirate Bay is helping them do that.
|
first of all the arguement is a circular proof
fair use is an affirmative defence, you need to accused of something to be able to argue your actions are not an infringement because of fair use
using wolverine (work print) as proof of no fair use presuposes that the fair use right of access shifting would not be recognized (Which most certainly would have covered an unreleased work print).
But the fair use of access shifting could not be argued wolverine work print was not part of the trial.
Which leads back to the presuposition that it would not be recognized.
And starts the loop all over again.
Fair use was irrelevant the judge allowed the procecution to state that linking to a torrent file which contains no copyright material in it, has the same legal liablity as a bbs linking directly to the copyright material
in the closing arguements
outside the possiblity of rebuttal or cross examination.
That is the entire bases of the case, the only way the could have got the conviction they got, because as i have said over and over again
the police didn't even prove that the pirate bay trackers were involved in the transaction at all(DHT was enabled, no screen shots of the tracker page).