"We apply this standard to manufacturers of lock picks, crowbars, physical key-loggers, books detailing the security of computers, etc. I'm curious why you feel a different standard should apply to someone who provides hosting for torrent files. The onus is on the criminal, not those who provide tools which may or may not be used in a crime."

If I had a website setup exclusively for sharing valid credit card numbers (and yours was on my site), would you want my site taken down?

After all, the credit card number itself is just data (nothing is actually taken from the original owner when it is shared) and my site isn't actually doing charging anything to the cards.

As someone who just cancelled a CC after 2 transactions done by scummers, I find your example silly. I'm responsible for keeping my CC with me and the bank is responsible for providing on-line security. If a CC info was stolen from a shop's database, and then shared on some website, it doesn't matter that you can take that website down. Just cancel the CC and let the numbers rest forever.

Stealing a credit card is stealing in itself, you don't actually have to charge anything. The analogy isn't valid. The correct analogy is the fact that you can use Google to find numbers that look like credit card numbers. Similarly, hosting a copyrighted file is illegal. But providing the means in which to find said file is not.

There's a reason why the world should work this way. I can use a wide array of objects as a lock pick (i.e. a banana). To prosecute me for walking down the street with any of these objects (including actual lock picks) is just ludicrous. Hence why the law says that I actually have to demonstrate the intention to use a tool to steal something in order for it to be a crime. And in any case, the took maker is usually never liable.

It's a very simple idea. Prosecute the criminals, not the people who provide tools which might be used in a crime. Obviously there's an upper limit. For example, a grenade is a pretty unambiguous, single-use tool. That's why selling one is illegal. But most tools have many uses, some illegal and some not. It's an impossible task to go after the tool makers, so just go after the criminals.

"There's a reason why the world should work this way. I can use a wide array of objects as a lock pick (i.e. a banana). To prosecute me for walking down the street with any of these objects (including actual lock picks) is just ludicrous. Hence why the law says that I actually have to demonstrate the intention to use a tool to steal something in order for it to be a crime. And in any case, the took maker is usually never liable."

Your examples are ridiculous.

Here is an example from TPB:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5666626/Adobe_Photoshop_CS5_...

it's for photoshop CS5. The readme, which is on the website, clearly states what it is. There is no confusion. You aren't getting a demo or a trial.

TPB is also not like google because they also run many of the trackers used to download these files.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker

"Hence why the law says that I actually have to demonstrate the intention to use a tool to steal something in order for it to be a crime. And in any case, the took maker is usually never liable."

If you sell knives, you won't be prosecuted for murder. However, if you have a website detailing exactly how to kill someone, their schedule, and sell knives along with this guide, you probably will be held liable.

"It's an impossible task to go after the tool makers, so just go after the criminals."

It's not impossible to go after the tool makers. By going after TPB, they can potentially stop millions of downloads per day in one shot.

"Stealing a credit card is stealing in itself"

no it's not. If you don't have the original card in hand, you just have data. Data can't be "stolen" according to the responses here, only copied.

This is not what TPB is doing though: they provide a .torrent file that someone else hosts that could potentially contain credit card numbers (for example).

Now, if TPB had things plastered everywhere saying "20th Century Fox Movies," "Paramount Movies," and "Warner Bros. Movies" and all of these linked to illegal movies that none of those companies agreed to have up there for free.... Yeah, that might be bad.

Go to their site and look for something pushing illegal content. Their name contains pirate - that's a stretch. The mention they have music, movies, games, and software but these are not illegal in themselves. That's about as far as the rabbit hole goes.

"Go to their site and look for something pushing illegal content. Their name contains pirate - that's a stretch. The mention they have music, movies, games, and software but these are not illegal in themselves. That's about as far as the rabbit hole goes."

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. TPB changes their main search graphic to various copyrighted books, software, and movies to flaunt it in the faces of the content creators.

I've never seen that, but if you have a source other than your mouth I'd love to see it. I've seen them change the graphic, but never to copyrighted works. Oh, and I wasn't saying that to "[make myself] feel better," I was saying it because it is true afaik.

This is assuming the Pirate Bay et al. are exclusively set up for sharing copyrighted information, when this not the case. You can find credit card numbers through Google as well. Anyway, the example just seems really silly, and as a previous commenter noted, whether your site is taken down or not doesn't matter: the card number is leaked (which has nothing to do with your site), I'm canceling it anyway.

The easier it is to find "stolen" credit card numbers, the easier it is for legitimate services to protect against their misuse (analgous to vulnerability disclosure).

But if someone takes money from your credit card then that amount is not there anymore, whereas if I download and watch a movie it does not diminish anyone's chance of watching it.

Now I might become less likely to pay for the movie after I downloaded it for free, but if that likelihood was zero already then where is the harm caused?

"But if someone takes money from your credit card then that amount is not there anymore, whereas if I download and watch a movie it does not diminish anyone's chance of watching it.

Now I might become less likely to pay for the movie after I downloaded it for free, but if that likelihood was zero already then where is the harm caused?"

We aren't talking about the act of charging money on the card (which technically, is still just a bunch of 1s and 0s being transferred from one place to another). We are talking about the act of sharing the card info (just like sharing torrents, my site isn't doing the illegal activity, only facilitating it)

@tsally but Google does not profit nor market itself directly or indirectly from copyright infringement. The Pirate Bay does markets itself and profits(in the millions) from facilitating and the inducement of copyright infringement.

I use to download but grew tired of hoarding content and then hard drive crashes. Thankfully the content creators created Hulu and other legitimate ways to consume their content online. Maybe those who upvoted this live outside of the US?

"Thankfully the content creators created Hulu and other legitimate ways to consume their content online"

I wonder where that idea came from ...

This argument doesn't apply. The things that you listed all have legitimate, non lawbreaking uses. For instance, security books can help you keep your computer more secure, lockpicks can help you understand your house security, and so on.

A torrent containing a link to a file that is illegal to copy has no legitimate non lawbreaking use case. There is no legal way to use a torrent of Portal. I notice you mentioned in a separate comment that some items, like grenades, can only be used in illegal ways. This is true also of torrents that the Pirate Bay hosts.

Yes, it is true that legal torrents exist; however, the Pirate Bay distinguishes itself as having both legal and illegal torrents. That's what the difference is.

As you say, legal torrents exist (indeed, many open source projects rely on torrents because they can't afford the bandwidth costs of direct download). Therefore, a torrent tracker has both legitimate and illegitimate uses. Similarly, I can find legal and illegal content via a Google search.

There isn't any ambiguity here. Torrents and web search are both multi-use technologies. In the case of multi-use technologies, we should prosecute the criminals based on their use of the technology in question.

I have downloaded many copyrighted works that I own physical media for as a convenience, since ripping them can be such a pain and kids are hard on little plastic discs. Courts have held that this copy is a legal copy.

To say there is no legitimate non-lawbreaking use is incorrect.

Yes, but I guess when you use Bittorrent for this purpos, you have to make sure that you are not sharing your legal copy with other people, who may not have purchased the work.

It is not my job to police them. Given I am utilizing the BT ecosystem to receive the copy, I share in return as payment. I do not share movies forever, but that is really just to keep my bandwidth from being saturated. If I just leach, then I won't have an opportunity in the future to have this convenience.

Would I prefer that they not pirate the stuff I download? Yes, I would. Content creators absolutely deserve to be paid for their efforts.

If content publishers would give me the convenience of a non-DRM infected digital copy (or the ability to easily rip a disc), I would not ever need to use BT. The digital copies of disks some publishers provide is close, but not good enough.

I was talking about the legal situation. Downloading of stuff you own may be legal. Sharing (even while you download) is not legal, if the license does not permit it.