Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
The trial began on 16 February in Stockholm district court, when the four co-founders of The Pirate Bay, Fredrik Neij, Carl Lundström, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Kolmisoppi, were put in the dock on charges of assisting copyright infringement.
The Pirate Bay does not itself host audio and video files, but provides links to torrents hosted elsewhere on the internet.
That's true, but only in the same way that hiding behind a sheet of paper is taking cover during a firefight.dumbest thing ive heard since a while, you could argue exactly the same way to ban google and every other search engine.
still i think its something different to tell people where to download something rather than actually hosting warez.That's true, but only in the same way that hiding behind a sheet of paper is taking cover during a firefight.
When you have a site called "The Pirate Bay" that has the heading "Download Music, Movies, Games, Software!" and regularly promotes new game/movie releases by changing the front page accordingly, you don't just offer a "search" - you offer a search for warez, and actively promote the searching for, and download of, said warez. You can call that legal, and you can say that banning the Pirate Bay is like banning Google, but isn't that just a bit naive considering the previous sentence?
switzerland.ditto.
Rapidshare makes its most money with warez, but noone sues them. Wonder why
isohunt said:File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.
A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing.
B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.
D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away
And based on comments here and elsewhere, one I'm reminded I've heard before, I venture to add a 5th case:
UPDATED wrote:
E. Those who use sharing networks to download what they already bought in another digital form. Aka. format shifting, for various reasons including DRM or for backup purposes. Examples include:
* You bought a copy-protected CD, and you can't conveniently transfer the songs to your iPod or MP3 player.
* Games that are so crippled by copy protection that you had trouble running the game you bought, but a downloaded copy would be free of such crippling DRM. 2649 1/5 stars offers amusing insight.
* Your HDDVD player stopped working, no player is sold anymore, and you want Bluray versions of HDDVD movies you bought.
* Software/games where the CD/DVD they came on have been too scratched up to play (by your children or whatever reason). Case of downloading a backup copy of digital goods you bought..