131–140 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would that be a bad thing though? Those websites are purposefully acting in a way that doesn't respect the copyright of the owner of the content they want to show. That they do this through a third-party host shouldn't be that important.
Why shouldn't it, when the host is a much more obvious target?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the distribution of profit is completely different in those two cases, and that's legally relevant. When you go on the dark web and buy something illegal, the money goes to the seller, whereas presumably nobody is directly profiting from the torrents.
The obvious question then is how you classify a pirate bay clone that has no ads. No profits.
Common sense. A pirate bay clone would still be knowingly and intentionally distributing links to infringing material, whether or not doing so without a financial incentive is illegal depends on the jurisdiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't it, when the host is a much more obvious target?
That the host is breaking the law doesn't mean the site that links to the host isn't breaking it as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Because the hash is in the blockchain, certificates cannot be created retroactively. 2. The notary could make their archive public, so that any interested party could go through and verify that it is legit. 3. By using many different notaries the chance of any one of them being bad would be reduced.
Sure, and if the quorum consists of 6 members, and you managed to undermind 3 of them by making sure they're fed the same custom shadow content, you'll have a split.
That's not what the decision said. At all. The decision said that a link to illegal content can be illegal in itself when 1. it's done for monetary purposes, and 2. when the person creating the link was aware of the illegal nature of the content being linked. But who would have doubted about that? Did you really think you could create links to illegal content for money and get away with it? On the other side, it clar…
> Did you really think you could create links to illegal content for money and get away with it? Yes, and that's a horrible ruling. Almost everything can be construed as "for money". Are you a newspaper with paid subscribers? Everything you link is "for money". Do you have a Google ad on your hobby blog? Technically, you're getting paid for it. Someone will make the argument that you're driving traffic to your ad-spo…
That hardly seems like "nothing", if you're giving specific directions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obvious question then is how you classify a pirate bay clone that has no ads. No profits.
Are you being serious here? How do you think courts deal with these issues every day ? Common sense. A pirate bay clone would still be knowingly and intentionally distributing links to infringing material, whether or not doing so without a financial incentive is illegal depends on the jurisdiction.
That's not what the decision said. At all. The decision said that a link to illegal content can be illegal in itself when 1. it's done for monetary purposes, and 2. when the person creating the link was aware of the illegal nature of the content being linked. But who would have doubted about that? Did you really think you could create links to illegal content for money and get away with it? On the other side, it clar…
> Did you really think you could create links to illegal content for money and get away with it? Yes, and that's a horrible ruling. Almost everything can be construed as "for money". Are you a newspaper with paid subscribers? Everything you link is "for money". Do you have a Google ad on your hobby blog? Technically, you're getting paid for it. Someone will make the argument that you're driving traffic to your ad-spo…
So why do people have Google ads on their hobby blogs? Could it be that it's actually for money, not just "for money"? If it's not for money, why even bother running ads? Sounds to me like a pretty good indicator of intention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying the argument should be ignorance, rather that it should be lack of causality. The user has to specifically configure their system to turn these magnet IDs into a piracy opportunity. Or they have to copy each one into their torrent client of choice. Just like if I review an illegal drug and tell everyone exactly what it is so you can get the right thing from your supplier... I'm still not your supplier,…
By that line of reasoning you could publish a website with information on hitmen for hire and put their phone number beside each listing. After all it's just a sequence of numbers and the user has to manually call or configure their device to place the phone call.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you really think you could create links to illegal content for money and get away with it? Yes, and that's a horrible ruling. Almost everything can be construed as "for money". Are you a newspaper with paid subscribers? Everything you link is "for money". Do you have a Google ad on your hobby blog? Technically, you're getting paid for it. Someone will make the argument that you're driving traffic to your ad-spo…
> Everything you link is "for money". Do you have a Google ad on your hobby blog? Technically, you're getting paid for it. So why do people have Google ads on their hobby blogs? Could it be that it's actually for money , not just "for money"? If it's not for money, why even bother running ads? Sounds to me like a pretty good indicator of intention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everything you link is "for money". Do you have a Google ad on your hobby blog? Technically, you're getting paid for it. So why do people have Google ads on their hobby blogs? Could it be that it's actually for money , not just "for money"? If it's not for money, why even bother running ads? Sounds to me like a pretty good indicator of intention.
Because hobbies cost money? It's not their day job, they're just looking to maybe pay for their hosting and a little more, generally.