On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Alex Kozak <[email protected]> wrote:
> (Sorry if this gets sent out twice, having some mailinglist issues.) > > I wouldn't call it a double standard. Google provides a service that aims > much higher than simply enabling copyright infringement. However you feel > about copyright law, I don't think you can deny that TPB induced copyright > infringement (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd. [although > the grokster case was over software and not an online service]) and would > probably would have been liable in the U.S. for the infringement of its > users. > > On the other hand, Google indexes the web regardless of content. Their > search function has been found by the courts to be transformative (for > example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10_v._Google and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformativeness) and aimed at providing a > kind of (clearly beneficial) public service. But, TPB indexed .torrent files regardless of content. They didn't limit anyone. Even brokep (Peter Sunde) said in his (albeit unverified) claim that 80% of the torrents the site indexed weren't copyrighted. So it looks like a stifling of the service because it could, and did, enable infringement. But that wasn't the purpose of the site. It's a .torrent index, of whatever anyone wants to make a .torrent out of. Does the fact that I couldn't get my Windows 7 build 7000 for which I legitimately signed up to receive from the beta because the site was down mean that TPB didn't provide a great service in letting me download it? From where I'm standing, it's service was clearly beneficial, and was about many many other uses. Of course this is just my opinion.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
