[pp.int.general] Pirate Bay

[Glenn Kerbein]

Reinier,
	Your argument is inherently flawed. One cannot conduct an illegal act
without the act being illegal to do in the first place. Infringement is
infringement is infringement. As I understand it, yes, there is a
private copying clause in most countries including Canada. It is oft
compensated via taxes levied or blanket licenses (the Isle of Man is
doing this); I'm glad that media conglomerates/companies can still
benefit from private copying.
	What The Pirate Bay did was assist in the facilitation of copyright
infringement. The court case showed this. The site obvious encourages
this, through the front page, and through the title of the page. As Tim
Berners-Lee put it, hyperlinking is centric to the principles of the
internet. Here's my question: who's rights, and how are they being put
at risk, when content owners take proactive stances on copyright
infringers? The users clearly don't own the rights, and are conducting
an illegal act, as demonstrated earlier; they're not at risk.
	This conversation has gotten way out of hand as it is. The point of my
input was to ensure, and guide you to the best of my ability, that a
relevant topic and legal prevalence was maintained within your letter.

	It isn't your place to question my morality and apply stereotypes. I am
a pirate insofar as to ensure that the individual vices of "intellectual
property" are reduced and brought into heavier scrutiny. I don't believe
in the same things that you do, but that doesn't make me less of a
pirate than you, and vice versa.

Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> Reinier,
>> What would be the purpose, and desirable result that you want to get
>> through this letter? Perhaps attacking such a minuscule issue with a
>> strongly-worded letter would be overtly excessive.
>> My thoughts on the issue, it seems, is the application of the phrase
>> "illegal downloading." It stems from copyright infringement on a smaller
>> scale, within the purview of civil litigation or courts. Copyright
>> infringement is illegal; this applies for most jurisdictions and
>> countries. When a user downloads a film, per se, they are engaging in
>> copyright infringement, an illegal act. They are illegally infringing on
>> copyright, or, in simpler terms, illegally downloading.
> 
> You are mistaken. Yes, copyright infringement is illegal. But copying
> for your own personal use is no infringement, in most European
> countries. It may be fair use in the use. In continental Europe there is
> a "closed system" of exceptions, including the one I just mentioned. The
> reason why private copying was allowed is twofold 1) enforcement would
> require an unacceptable privacy infringement (note that this dates fro
> mthe pre-internet era) 2) people pay already via media levies.
> Finally, TPB does not facilitate file sharing itself, but only refers to
> sites that do that. Where is the end if hyperlinking is restricted? A
> hyperlink is no publication, it is a reference?
> 
> So far, this was about current law. But there is a good reason to
> question current law: if draconic enforcement is needed, apparently the
> public support is low. And human rights may suffer.
> 
> Thanks for playing devlis advocate, but who is the real pirate here?
> 
> reinier
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

-- 
Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein
Pirate Party of the United States
"Burn, Hollywood, Burn"