
and its assisting*
They needa get hold of them logs! Doubt there still around though...
I don't think they will get brought down. It doesn't affect me anyway.
The pirate bay is simply a search engine. In the same way that road builders build roads for people to drive on, TPB hosts a service to help people find torrents. The fact that people decide to use the service for copyrighted material, in the same way that bank robbers use roads to get away from the bank quickly, isn't their fault, at least in principle. I'm not well versed in Swedish law either so in the context of the case I couldn't say whether simply hosting the service makes them accountable, but the analogy stands imo.Your analogy fails because road builders and car manufacturers are not fulfilling their roles in order to assist banks being robbed. Here, the defendants are intentionally using their architecture to facilitate illegal activity. It may be a moot point as far as the Swedish case is concerned, but it's pertinent to killing your analogy.
I have not paid nearly enough interest in the case, or know sufficient Swedish law, to form an educated guess at the outcome. If they have an 'assisting' argument against them... wouldn't that be difficult to negative given that they are knowingly facilitating illegal activity?
I dare say nobody here is well versed in the intricacies of Swedish law, so 'they will' and 'the will not' cannot easily be bandied about. Predicting the 'likely' outcome is possible... but there is not a definitive here yet. Oh, and gut instinct tells me that Sweden is probably one of the more favourable countries (for the defendants) to be tried in.
@Kevin: the vast majority of the time, disclaimers on websites count for ****.
I do see what you're saying, but what Barmi said is right... sure, TPB is simply a search engine but it's a search engine specifically and solely designed to search for torrents. It's not like Google. Now if you said Google helps find warez just like cars help robbers get away then that'd be a correct analogy because google isn't specifically and solely made to find warez, just like cars aren't specifically and solely made to help robbers get away.The pirate bay is simply a search engine. In the same way that road builders build roads for people to drive on, TPB hosts a service to help people find torrents. The fact that people decide to use the service for copyrighted material, in the same way that bank robbers use roads to get away from the bank quickly, isn't their fault, at least in principle. I'm not well versed in Swedish law either so in the context of the case I couldn't say whether simply hosting the service makes them accountable, but the analogy stands imo.
And TPB isn't solely there to search for torrents containing copyrighted material. BitTorrent distros etc. can be found on there.I do see what you're saying, but what Barmi said is right... sure, TPB is simply a search engine but it's a search engine specifically and solely designed to search for torrents. It's not like Google. Now if you said Google helps find warez just like cars help robbers get away then that'd be a correct analogy because google isn't specifically and solely made to find warez, just like cars aren't specifically and solely made to help robbers get away.
Hmm true, however I'd say most people (who use it) download illegally. I do see what Alex is saying now, my bad. Although I didn't state illegally in my post... but the main purpose of TPB is to help people download illegal software/music, etc. If it wasn't and was solely there to provide people links to legal torrents then they'd take down illegal ones and there wouldn't be a court case and all of those emails etc.
I hope TPB wins though, the people talking them to court didn't really understand how torrents worked, thinking TPB hosted the files. :rolleyes:
Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!