A musing: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. – Links don’t infringe copyright, people infringe copyright.
Is it just me or are they trying to prove the latter statement wrong? And by all accounts if they can prove it wrong would it not make the former statement come under scrutiny as well… I know this has been simplified a ton and more but still. I don’t know why but I feel guns and BT are pretty much alike.

Guns can be used for home protection and keeping yourself safe. Guns can also be used to kill and terrorize people.
BT can be used for spreading Linux distros and other works. BT can also be used to download copyrighted material.

Monday mornings may not be the best time for thoughts like this. Pretty odd logic.

This is what makes so bogus claims like, “well, it was in your RAM memory for 1/10th of a second so you can display and record logs”. Hello…. What isn’t mentioned in that little tidbit, is that there is no software I know of capable of pulling out that temporary flash of RAM holding as it passes through and then disappears off into where ever electrons go. And such a case was made and agreed to by a court to obtain logs of users to ISOhunt I think it was.

On one end you got the copyright forces just chomping at the bit because horror of horrors someone got a 1/10 of a second recording of one of their precious bits and bytes. Yet no one stops to think that the whole banana went or the net don’t function. Now you can not have a digital store selling material, without copying going on. You can’t view a newspaper or any copyrighted image without copying happening.

Under present US law, at the moment of creation, a work is automatically granted copyright. So under those terms, this post could well under any other setting be termed to have a default copyright. Which when it comes down to it, is assine. Just because I take a moment to type out a bunch of strung together words, or music notes for that matter does not make it valuable enough to hold copyright. Nor can most websites really IMHO be termed to be worthy of copyright, just because they exist.

So now that you got this huge copymachine throwing bits and bytes around the world, you can’t have it both ways. Not only do laws vary from country to country but so does basic value as far as content goes. You and I know that some tweet isn’t on par with the words of some Nobel prize winner writing about his field of profession. That doesn’t mean the Nobel author’s writings are worthy of copyright. Yet if it is put on the net, it is likely you can obtain your very own copy simply by viewing it.

So when you get to the nut cutting, Microsoft is just as guilty as Google for assisting copyright infringement, if TPB is. Yet for some very strange reason, even though I can place my search terms in a manner that shows only torrents of copyrighted works, copyrighted images, or copyrighted programs, neither of the first two do we hear anything like this farce going on at present.

It’s not even making available which implies that you are offering or potentially allow access to copyrighted material. “Assisting” is such broad accusation that is can cover almost anything. Google could easily be charged with the same act, because it links to copyrighted material; you don’t see them suing google do you? that’s because (1) they are extremely wealthy and have an army of lawyers who would rip apart their unsubstantiated and quite possibly not existent claims, and (2) They don’t want to risk setting a bad precedent.

The pirate bay neither hosts or aids in the distribution of copyrighted materials, that is performed chiefly by the users of the tracker. Just as ISPs enjoy a conduit limited liability so should the piratebay. “Assisting” and “Facilitating” “Copyright Theft” as the copyright industry terms it, is a specious attempt to circumvent the established legislation that requires the burden of evidential distribution.

Unfortunately, that’s only in America as far as I know. Hence, these corporate shitheads are gonna keep pushing this one everywhere else (and to some degree in America too despite this ruling, it seems).

You now know, “what the hell ‘assisting copyright infringement’ is”.

:p

-A person who works in a photocopier shop

-A person who sends a fax for someone (Secretary)

-Jon allowing someone to post a link to a copyright newspaper link

These are all examples of ‘assisting copyright infringement’. And all are guilty.

from a technical standpoint, its amazing the techno-stupid shit these asshats vomit out in an attempt to get another asshat judge to believe.

make the dumbasses PROVE unlicensed distribution, (something they have admitted to being impossible).

and who actually gives a fsck that Bono is pissed, I for one am glad. P2P isn’t going anywhere, deal with it.

stw