No, I don't think it is. Their purpose is to facilitate crime - however, you have found a legal argument that *might* work in court. They could claim that, of course nobody is likely to believe them whey they call themselves "the pirate bay".
"When its in google's cache, they are directly hosting it on their servers- that's a crime, no ambiguity included. "
Indeed no ambiguity, they are innocent. They don't put anything there, it is gathered automatically without intent. Makes all the difference
(Come on! What fucking nitwit of a retarded child can claim its more legal than Google, and then they mod ME down!)
The sole purpose of pirate bay is to facilitate crime, Google has a ton of uses and occasionally, very rarely, they may end up hosting something they shouldn't - for a brief while. Google removes things from the cache, the pirate bay tells people to fuck off. They have been asking for it forever.
"Pirate Bay no more INTENDED to faciliate crime than an Interstate Highway is intended to provide a getaway route for bank robbers. "
False.
"That they CAN be used that way is up to the user.......or highway builders would all be de facto accessories to every crime aided or committed by the existence of highways. "
"The original statement was of the logical form "The sole purpose of X is Y" where Y was "to facilitate crime".
For the purposes of ridiculing this, ummmm, ridiculous statement, I replaced X with various other things, to give some indication of the foolishness of such absolutism in statements. You *did* notice this, didn't you?"
Yes I did - but my original statement was true, yours was just nonsense.
The sole reason for the pirate bay is to share stuff which is illegal, trying to suggest otherwise is just nonsense. That's not to say there might not be a legal loophole, but nobody (adult) is going to believe otherwise.
"Pirate Bay has various purposes, "
No, it doesn't seem so.
"some of the monetary, "
Yes, to raise money for themselves. Noble goal *g*
"some of them political. "
No, it has nothing to do with the political "pirate party" expect perhaps in some views.
"Your original statement was worthless, poorly thought thru, and easily demolished. "
Except you failed to "demolish" anything.
"I chose to treat it with the contempt it deserved. "
And thereby failed to prove anything.
"You seem to have missed my deliberately stupid finisher: Sure as the pope shits in the woods, and the bear wears a pointy hat.
This may have given someone more clueful than thou some indication to my intent, as I was worried that your original post was so ridiculous that I was being the victim of a troll, and chose to be playful. "
Well, forgive me, I'm not quite up on redneck vernacular.
"I thought that you were a troll, but now I know for sure that you are fuckwit. "
Ah yes, the last resort of the argumentless: abuse. (and of course on slashdot, they can get their script kiddie friends to mod other people down)
"Yes, I'm sure they're aware people use those text files to ultimately end up with files which infringe upon copyright of american corporations, but under Sweedish law this is not illegal. "
I don't believe that.
"So they are not 'culpable' for anything under the laws of the country in which they live and operate. "
That remains to be seen.
"So, if I sell you a crow-bar, and tell you it's really effective for breaking into houses, I'm a criminal? "
(God, I wish the 12 year olds didn't have moderation priviliges here)
"The owners of the Pirate Bay don't post any torrents. "
They host torrents to illegal material, they know so and refuse to do something about it. That makes them culpable.
"There are arguments to be made that Google caching is more legal than TPB, "
I doubt there are arguments to be made that Googles cache is illegal or has anything whatsoever to do with the pirate bay. Their intent appears to be criminal, Googels isn't.
Nonsense. The sole purpose of pirate bay is to facilitate crime, Google has a ton of uses and occasionally, very rarely, they may end up hosting something they shouldn't - for a brief while. Google removes things from the cache, the pirate bay tells people to fuck off. They have been asking for it forever.
The original statement was of the logical form "The sole purpose of X is Y" where Y was "to facilitate crime".
For the purposes of ridiculing this, ummmm, ridiculous statement, I replaced X with various other things, to give some indication of the foolishness of such absolutism in statements. You *did* notice this, didn't you?
Yes I did - but my original statement was true, yours was just nonsense. The sole reason for the pirate bay is to share stuff which is illegal, trying to suggest otherwise is just nonsense. That's not to say there might not be a legal loophole, but nobody (adult) is going to believe otherwise.
Pirate Bay has various purposes,
No, it doesn't seem so.
some of the monetary,
Yes, to raise money for themselves. Noble goal *g*
some of them political.
No, it has nothing to do with the political "pirate party" expect perhaps in some views.
Your original statement was worthless, poorly thought thru, and easily demolished.
Except you failed to "demolish" anything.
I chose to treat it with the contempt it deserved.
And thereby failed to prove anything.
You seem to have missed my deliberately stupid finisher: Sure as the pope shits in the woods, and the bear wears a pointy hat.
This may have given someone more clueful than thou some indication to my intent, as I was worried that your original post was so ridiculous that I was being the victim of a troll, and chose to be playful.
Well, forgive me, I'm not quite up on redneck vernacular.
I thought that you were a troll, but now I know for sure that you are fuckwit.
Ah yes, the last resort of the argument less: abuse.
Pirate Bay no more INTENDED to faciliate crime than an Interstate Highway is intended to provide a getaway route for bank robbers.
False.
That they CAN be used that way is up to the user.......or highway builders would all be de facto accessories to every crime aided or committed by the existence of highways.
Yes, I'm sure they're aware people use those text files to ultimately end up with files which infringe upon copyright of american corporations, but under Sweedish law this is not illegal.
I don't believe that.
So they are not 'culpable' for anything under the laws of the country in which they live and operate.
That remains to be seen.
So, if I sell you a crow-bar, and tell you it's really effective for breaking into houses, I'm a criminal?
The owners of the Pirate Bay don't post any torrents.
They host torrents to illegal material, they know so and refuse to do something about it. That makes them culpable.
There are arguments to be made that Google caching is more legal than TPB,
I doubt there are arguments to be made that Googles cache is illegal or has anything whatsoever to do with the pirate bay. Their intent appears to be criminal, Googels isn't.
No, I don't think it is. Their purpose is to facilitate crime - however, you have found a legal argument that *might* work in court. They could claim that, of course nobody is likely to believe them whey they call themselves "the pirate bay".
When its in google's cache, they are directly hosting it on their servers- that's a crime, no ambiguity included.
Indeed no ambiguity, they are innocent. They don't put anything there, it is gathered automatically without intent. Makes all the difference.
According to the Swedish news coverage, there is some legitimate doubts as to whether it was a legitimate investigation or not. Their laws don't make linking to infingements an illegality. As such, since The Pirate Bay didn't host anything that is illegal per Swedish law.
I dont believe that. Surely they too have laws which specify you are not allowed to help others comit a crime - bang, they could get them there.
But even if they don't, they are a signatory of the Berne Convention, so they will have to change their laws.
Already there are stories in the media that this raid came after pressure from the US - should there be a hole in the law its likely to be changed quickly.
Nonsense. The sole purpose of pirate bay is to facilitate crime, Google has a ton of uses and occasionally, very rarely, they may end up hosting something they shouldn't - for a brief while. Google removes things from the cache, the pirate bay tells people to fuck off. They have been asking for it forever.
Those people. And I think its unlikely they didn't break the law, however if by some obscure chance they didn't it's because there was an oversight in the law which will probably soon be changed (money rules)
99.9% of all sites abuse stylesheets to specify an ABSOLUTE FONT SIZE for fonts, so browsers who follow the specs won't allow you to resize them (like MSIE). Because the people who make the sites only care about it looking good on THEIR MACHINE, not on everybody elses - damn annoying you have to try and read a site with a magnifying glass. Oh if only the web lived up to Berners Lees ideas: Scalable webpages. But of course there isn't much utopia in this world (even most of Slashdots pages looks crap, and do they care? Nooooooo of course not)
Slashdot Mirror
"So your statement is inaccurate. "
No, I don't think it is. Their purpose is to facilitate crime - however, you have found a legal argument that *might* work in court. They could claim that, of course nobody is likely to believe them whey they call themselves "the pirate bay".
"When its in google's cache, they are directly hosting it on their servers- that's a crime, no ambiguity included. "
Indeed no ambiguity, they are innocent. They don't put anything there, it is gathered automatically without intent. Makes all the difference
"Pirate Bay is *more* legal than Google. "
Nonsense.
(Come on! What fucking nitwit of a retarded child can claim its more legal than Google, and then they mod ME down!)
The sole purpose of pirate bay is to facilitate crime, Google has a ton of uses and occasionally, very rarely, they may end up hosting something they shouldn't - for a brief while. Google removes things from the cache, the pirate bay tells people to fuck off. They have been asking for it forever.
"Pirate Bay no more INTENDED to faciliate crime than an Interstate Highway is intended to provide a getaway route for bank robbers. "
False.
"That they CAN be used that way is up to the user.......or highway builders would all be de facto accessories to every crime aided or committed by the existence of highways. "
Nonsense.
"Seems that I am arguing with a teenager, "
Funny, that is what i was thinking.
"The original statement was of the logical form "The sole purpose of X is Y" where Y was "to facilitate crime".
For the purposes of ridiculing this, ummmm, ridiculous statement, I replaced X with various other things, to give some indication of the foolishness of such absolutism in statements. You *did* notice this, didn't you?"
Yes I did - but my original statement was true, yours was just nonsense.
The sole reason for the pirate bay is to share stuff which is illegal, trying to suggest otherwise is just nonsense. That's not to say there might not be a legal loophole, but nobody (adult) is going to believe otherwise.
"Pirate Bay has various purposes, "
No, it doesn't seem so.
"some of the monetary, "
Yes, to raise money for themselves. Noble goal *g*
"some of them political. "
No, it has nothing to do with the political "pirate party" expect perhaps in some views.
"Your original statement was worthless, poorly thought thru, and easily demolished. "
Except you failed to "demolish" anything.
"I chose to treat it with the contempt it deserved. "
And thereby failed to prove anything.
"You seem to have missed my deliberately stupid finisher: Sure as the pope shits in the woods, and the bear wears a pointy hat.
This may have given someone more clueful than thou some indication to my intent, as I was worried that your original post was so ridiculous that I was being the victim of a troll, and chose to be playful. "
Well, forgive me, I'm not quite up on redneck vernacular.
"I thought that you were a troll, but now I know for sure that you are fuckwit. "
Ah yes, the last resort of the argumentless: abuse.
(and of course on slashdot, they can get their script kiddie friends to mod other people down)
"They host text files which list ip addresses. "
No, torrents are binary files.
"Yes, I'm sure they're aware people use those text files to ultimately end up with files which infringe upon copyright of american corporations, but under Sweedish law this is not illegal. "
I don't believe that.
"So they are not 'culpable' for anything under the laws of the country in which they live and operate. "
That remains to be seen.
"So, if I sell you a crow-bar, and tell you it's really effective for breaking into houses, I'm a criminal? "
It might yes.
"And when it was illegal to strike, the sole purpose of unions was to facilitate crime."
Nope.
"And when it was illegal to want to run your own country, the sole purpose of Ghandi was to facilitate crime. "
Most certainly not.
"the sole purpose of the hardware shop down the road is to facilitate crime (they sell crowbars). "
Utter nonsense.
"The sole purpose of the cutlery shop at the mall is to facilitate murder. "
Nonsense.
"Filesharing is not, and should not be regarded as a crime. "
Who said anything about filesharing, we were talking about the piratebay.
(God, I wish the 12 year olds didn't have moderation priviliges here)
"The owners of the Pirate Bay don't post any torrents. "
They host torrents to illegal material, they know so and refuse to do something about it. That makes them culpable.
"There are arguments to be made that Google caching is more legal than TPB, "
I doubt there are arguments to be made that Googles cache is illegal or has anything whatsoever to do with the pirate bay. Their intent appears to be criminal, Googels isn't.
(Not a troll, fact)
Nonsense. The sole purpose of pirate bay is to facilitate crime, Google has a ton of uses and occasionally, very rarely, they may end up hosting something they shouldn't - for a brief while. Google removes things from the cache, the pirate bay tells people to fuck off. They have been asking for it forever.
Fuckwit
Ok kid, if you can't behave then this is over.
Seems that I am arguing with a teenager,
Funny, that is what i was thinking.
The original statement was of the logical form "The sole purpose of X is Y" where Y was "to facilitate crime".
For the purposes of ridiculing this, ummmm, ridiculous statement, I replaced X with various other things, to give some indication of the foolishness of such absolutism in statements. You *did* notice this, didn't you?
Yes I did - but my original statement was true, yours was just nonsense.
The sole reason for the pirate bay is to share stuff which is illegal, trying to suggest otherwise is just nonsense. That's not to say there might not be a legal loophole, but nobody (adult) is going to believe otherwise.
Pirate Bay has various purposes,
No, it doesn't seem so.
some of the monetary,
Yes, to raise money for themselves. Noble goal *g*
some of them political.
No, it has nothing to do with the political "pirate party" expect perhaps in some views.
Your original statement was worthless, poorly thought thru, and easily demolished.
Except you failed to "demolish" anything.
I chose to treat it with the contempt it deserved.
And thereby failed to prove anything.
You seem to have missed my deliberately stupid finisher: Sure as the pope shits in the woods, and the bear wears a pointy hat.
This may have given someone more clueful than thou some indication to my intent, as I was worried that your original post was so ridiculous that I was being the victim of a troll, and chose to be playful.
Well, forgive me, I'm not quite up on redneck vernacular.
I thought that you were a troll, but now I know for sure that you are fuckwit.
Ah yes, the last resort of the argument less: abuse.
Is there something wrong with your irony meter? Or are you just stupid?
What you wrote was stupid, if you want to do stand-up go to a nightclub.
Pirate Bay no more INTENDED to faciliate crime than an Interstate Highway is intended to provide a getaway route for bank robbers.
False.
That they CAN be used that way is up to the user.......or highway builders would all be de facto accessories to every crime aided or committed by the existence of highways.
Nonsense.
Except, of course, that doing so is not a crime in Sweden.
Except it is (just wait and see)
Copyrighted content being cached and served directly without permission of the copyright holders?
When people put things on the web it is made to be seen by all, unless the take steps to prevent it.
They host text files which list ip addresses.
No, torrents are binary files.
Yes, I'm sure they're aware people use those text files to ultimately end up with files which infringe upon copyright of american corporations, but under Sweedish law this is not illegal.
I don't believe that.
So they are not 'culpable' for anything under the laws of the country in which they live and operate.
That remains to be seen.
So, if I sell you a crow-bar, and tell you it's really effective for breaking into houses, I'm a criminal?
It might yes.
And when it was illegal to strike, the sole purpose of unions was to facilitate crime.
Nope.
And when it was illegal to want to run your own country, the sole purpose of Ghandi was to facilitate crime.
Most certainly not.
the sole purpose of the hardware shop down the road is to facilitate crime (they sell crowbars).
Utter nonsense.
The sole purpose of the cutlery shop at the mall is to facilitate murder.
Nonsense.
Filesharing is not, and should not be regarded as a crime.
Who said anything about filesharing, we were talking about the piratebay.
The owners of the Pirate Bay don't post any torrents.
They host torrents to illegal material, they know so and refuse to do something about it. That makes them culpable.
There are arguments to be made that Google caching is more legal than TPB,
I doubt there are arguments to be made that Googles cache is illegal or has anything whatsoever to do with the pirate bay. Their intent appears to be criminal, Googels isn't.
So your statement is inaccurate.
No, I don't think it is. Their purpose is to facilitate crime - however, you have found a legal argument that *might* work in court. They could claim that, of course nobody is likely to believe them whey they call themselves "the pirate bay".
When its in google's cache, they are directly hosting it on their servers- that's a crime, no ambiguity included.
Indeed no ambiguity, they are innocent. They don't put anything there, it is gathered automatically without intent. Makes all the difference.
According to the Swedish news coverage, there is some legitimate doubts as to whether it was a legitimate investigation or not. Their laws don't make linking to infingements an illegality. As such, since The Pirate Bay didn't host anything that is illegal per Swedish law.
I dont believe that. Surely they too have laws which specify you are not allowed to help others comit a crime - bang, they could get them there.
But even if they don't, they are a signatory of the Berne Convention, so they will have to change their laws.
Already there are stories in the media that this raid came after pressure from the US - should there be a hole in the law its likely to be changed quickly.
Pirate Bay is *more* legal than Google.
Nonsense. The sole purpose of pirate bay is to facilitate crime, Google has a ton of uses and occasionally, very rarely, they may end up hosting something they shouldn't - for a brief while. Google removes things from the cache, the pirate bay tells people to fuck off. They have been asking for it forever.
Those people. And I think its unlikely they didn't break the law, however if by some obscure chance they didn't it's because there was an oversight in the law which will probably soon be changed (money rules)
Nobody is saying what they did isn't illegal - only that the law is wrong and should be changed.
No
Yes - intent matters.
one can repeat a lie without knowing that it's a lie.
Yes but then its not a lie - there has to be an intent to deceive.
We go over this pernicious nonsense often enough here that there really isn't any excuse for not knowing better.
People don't care - life is too short. I've probably forgotten it next week as well.
No, it is a lie
For it to be a lie it would have to deliberately stated against his better knowledge - just beacuse it may be factually wrong, doesn't mean its a lie.
That's IE's issue, not the devs.
No, its the devs who are abusing stylesheets. You are not supposed to use absolute scaling on websites, only incompetents do that.
IE is the only browser that doesn't allow the user to override the font size.
yes, IE is following the standards for once, who could imagine that.
99.9% of all sites abuse stylesheets to specify an ABSOLUTE FONT SIZE for fonts, so browsers who follow the specs won't allow you to resize them (like MSIE). Because the people who make the sites only care about it looking good on THEIR MACHINE, not on everybody elses - damn annoying you have to try and read a site with a magnifying glass. Oh if only the web lived up to Berners Lees ideas: Scalable webpages. But of course there isn't much utopia in this world (even most of Slashdots pages looks crap, and do they care? Nooooooo of course not)