Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane
No, I am not making a false analogy, because I am not talking about a situation with "non-infringement" or "not-cp", or potential abuse. I am asking you a straightforward question about morality, when a criminal act is known. When you know it is illegal, there are NO speculations left. Everything else is irrelevant...
So when you answer yes, that means you also accept the fact that the owner of a torrent website bear the burden of stopping it - and reporting it, when they know. Right?
|
if i were a torrent site owner i would believe
canadian court has ruled that peer to peer sharing of music is legal because of our piracy tax would be extended to every country that has a similar piracy tax
us court ruled that timeshifting in a cloud is legal would be extended both to the supreme court level and to every country that
European courts have ruled that ip address are not valid proof of an infringers identity and that 1 download != 1 lost sale would be extended to every country as well.
And that courts would declare that giving away a complete working copy of a file is different then giving away only a small piece of a file.
IF all those rulings came in their favor, all of their actions would be covered, they could no more know that their service was used to infringe as the walmart would know vcr buyer was going to use it legitimately or to bootleg movies.
Until the case is settled by/or accepted by every supreme court in the world it is impossible for them to "know" that a crime is being committed. Quite simple because those court ruling defined weather a crime has been committed.