[Blue Lion]

Doesn't Google remove copyrighted material on YouTube?

[Ghostavo]

I think so, but does it remove it from Google (the search engine) itself? Also, Youtube stores content, the Pirate Bay just links it.

[WeatherOp]

I laugh at the idiots that got caught, fined and jailed. Muhahahahaha 

Art thou an MPAA or prehaps and RIAA lobbyist?

Nah, I just enjoy when people like this get caught, and fined or jailed, and all the computer weenies cry for them. 

[Inquisitor]

I'm actually wanting to hear Blue Lion's opinion on Google's and every other search engine's fault on linking copyrighted material.

The difference is "Intent."

[karajorma]

YouTube didn't start removing copyrighted material until they were sued. And they fought against doing so for a long time, citing the impossibility of finding and removing all that material.

 In fact YouTube probably never would have risen above all the other startups in the same field if it wasn't for the fact that they were the best source for copyrighted materials.

[Ghostavo]

I'm actually wanting to hear Blue Lion's opinion on Google's and every other search engine's fault on linking copyrighted material.

The difference is "Intent."

No, it isn't. The Pirate Bay is a torrent tracker, the almost equivalent to a search engine for torrents. The only difference is that one uses a passive link gathering system (users) while the other actively searches content (eg. google spider).

The only intent is to link material. Let's take a look at their usage policy for instance:

The responsibility lies upon the user to not spread malicious, false or illegal material using the tracker.

This is remarkably similar to Google's:

8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated.

[Rick James]

YouTube didn't start removing copyrighted material until they were sued. And they fought against doing so for a long time, citing the impossibility of finding and removing all that material.

 In fact YouTube probably never would have risen above all the other startups in the same field if it wasn't for the fact that they were the best source for copyrighted materials.

^ What he said.

In other news, Swedish citizens protest the court ruling, and the Swedish Pirate Party membership surges in number from 15 000 to over 20 000 in the days since the trial.

Go Sweden.

[Inquisitor]

No, it isn't. The Pirate Bay is a torrent tracker, the almost equivalent to a search engine for torrents.

I'd buy that argument, maybe, if it was called "Torrent Bay."

And if the operators weren't unabashed pirates, telling lawyers who issued cease and desist letters to **** off, proud of both their illegal intent and their defiance of normal procedure. I'll give them that, it took some stones.

That's intent, though. Willful, blatant.

And that's the difference between them and Google.

I wish them luck in their appeal.

[Blue Lion]

I think so, but does it remove it from Google (the search engine) itself? Also, Youtube stores content, the Pirate Bay just links it.

That's why they weren't charged with (or at least convicted of) possession of copyrighted material.

[Blue Lion]

YouTube didn't start removing copyrighted material until they were sued. And they fought against doing so for a long time, citing the impossibility of finding and removing all that material.

 In fact YouTube probably never would have risen above all the other startups in the same field if it wasn't for the fact that they were the best source for copyrighted materials.

Which doesn't mean it was right, just popular. I might add that they do now attempt to remove the content.

[Blue Lion]

YouTube didn't start removing copyrighted material until they were sued. And they fought against doing so for a long time, citing the impossibility of finding and removing all that material.

 In fact YouTube probably never would have risen above all the other startups in the same field if it wasn't for the fact that they were the best source for copyrighted materials.

^ What he said.

In other news, Swedish citizens protest the court ruling, and the Swedish Pirate Party membership surges in number from 15 000 to over 20 000 in the days since the trial.

Go Sweden.

We've already established people like getting stuff for free.

I don't think anyone is shocked that people are totally FOR the ability to acquire (for free) almost any song, movie, tv show or program they can think of with almost no consequences.

[Rick James]

Dude. Triple post = unnecessary.

[Bobboau]

well, you might be getting a political party in power who's only position is 'getting stuff for free is totaly awesome'

[Kosh]

That's intent, though. Willful, blatant.

Then again North Korea calls themselves the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", but they sure as hell aren't democratic.

You really believe that? Kinda rails against the starving artist argument... And the "starving artist" argument is a huge red herring, that's not why people don't pay for music and you know it and it has damn little to do with why people pirate games.

That was just an example, but perhaps not the best. In reality there's three kinds of people, those who just buy it, those who pirate then if they like it enough, and those who would never buy it anyway for whatever reason. The reasoning behind pirating music is often the same. It is true that the "starving artist" is not why people pirate, but it does demonstrate that the record companies need radical reforms. There's only a select few super stars who profit from the current system, the rest don't have a chance.

Even with all of the "piracy is costing us billions" BS the publishing companies put out, my question is that even with all this torrenting and downloading why the hell were they making such huge profits?

acquire it legally,

Has the thought occured to you that at this point in time I can't without spending unacceptably large amounts of money? $60 a pop for a game is far too much for me at this point. If I had to choose between tuition and games, I'm choosing tuition.

Besides, the industry has even admitted that piracy isn't hurting their sales by nearly as much as they (and you) claim

EDIT: I'll throw some more in here. Do you believe that the introduction of the VCR in the home would destroy video cassette rentals and sales? After all, they can just copy the tapes (almost) for free.......

and here's a good article explaining what piracy has done for the music industry

[Blue Lion]

Has the thought occured to you that at this point in time I can't without spending unacceptably large amounts of money? $60 a pop for a game is far too much for me at this point. If I had to choose between tuition and games, I'm choosing tuition.

Has the thought ever occurred to you that if you can't afford a product or service.... you don't get it?

Does this mean I'll never see you rail in any of the threads about people getting houses they couldn't pay? Cause that's totally ok, right?

Besides, the industry has even admitted that piracy isn't hurting their sales by nearly as much as they (and you) claim

What is the correct level of sales loss to theft before the owner is allowed to do something about it?

Go shoplift something from a store and then tell them they should let you go because you didn't ruin the stores profit margin.

People would always steal stuff from us and be shocked we would actually call the cops. 

[Kosh]

Has the thought ever occurred to you that if you can't afford a product or service.... you don't get it?

Yet I want to play it anyway, since there's no way I could buy it anyway (meaning it isn't possible for them to make profits off of it anyway), why not pirate so I can add some joy to my otherwise dull existence?

[Blue Lion]

Has the thought ever occurred to you that if you can't afford a product or service.... you don't get it?

Yet I want to play it anyway, since there's no way I could buy it anyway (meaning it isn't possible for them to make profits off of it anyway), why not pirate so I can add some joy to my otherwise dull existence?

Because it's illegal? 

Are you asking why I think people shouldn't commit crimes just to make themselves feel better?

'I want to "insert crime here" because my life is dull and it gives me joy'

Have fun thinking up cool things to put in there. I can think of a few awesome ones.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

does this verdict matter in the fight against piracy?
nope.
Just as the verdicts against Napster of Kazaa didn't matter.
New methods will arise.
and in the meantime the pirate bay is still up and the appeals quite some time away.

[Kosh]

Because it's illegal?

Are you asking why I think people shouldn't commit crimes just to make themselves feel better?

'I want to "insert crime here" because my life is dull and it gives me joy'

Have fun thinking up cool things to put in there. I can think of a few awesome ones.

No, and copywrite infringement is not illegal. If you notice the big downloaders that go to court are going to CIVIL court, not criminal. It's only the service providers that are getting arrested.

[Janos]

No, it isn't. The Pirate Bay is a torrent tracker, the almost equivalent to a search engine for torrents.

I'd buy that argument, maybe, if it was called "Torrent Bay."

And if the operators weren't unabashed pirates, telling lawyers who issued cease and desist letters to **** off, proud of both their illegal intent and their defiance of normal procedure. I'll give them that, it took some stones.

Well, it obviously wasn't as clear-cut because the trial dragged on and charges were dropped.

It's almost as if the copyright laws were different around the world!