howcan

It just seemed like a very extreme example to use to illustrate conspiracy. That's all. You're not the only one I've seen draw such extreme examples. I am being argumentative. But that's only because I think there's an argument worth making. Apologies for singling you out. I probably misinterpreted your comment and chose the wrong time to make my argument.

As long as we understand what "illegal" means and the difference between criminal and civil, I'm happy. I think it's to the benefit of all hackers to know the difference and choose their examples carefully. It matters what you as a hacker think and how you understand these things. If you do not see a clear separation between the civil and criminal, it makes the job easier for those who seek to blur the line to further their own interests.

Anyway, I apologise if I misinterpreted your comment and used it as an entry point for a little rant about the difference between civil and criminal. My bad.

Interesting comment. PR may see social media as a threat, for exactly the reason you've mentioned. "Well-informed" is relative I think to what you're doing. For example, someone doing hard science research in a lab may only need access to scientific journals. She needs to keep pace with what is published in her area of research only; she could be oblivious to what's happening in the world and still be effective in her job. But from what I know of Buffet, I think he needs access to what journalists are saying. Again, it matter what you're trying to do.

My comment is not to do with TPB. My comment has to do with mixing legal principles (or more specifcally, areas of law) that are very different and do not mix well.

I disagree that "the same legal principle" applies, but then I'm not sure we have the same principles in mind. It sounds like you are thinking about the concept of conspiracy in general, or contributory infringement. But that's not what I was referring to.

In my mind, there is a clear delineation between what is criminal offence and involves bodily harm ("illegal") and what is simply an alleged violation of intellectual property or contractual rights (e.g. "alleged copyright infringment").

When someone jumps from one to the other, as the commenter did, it is very strange. Because to me they are two very different areas of law with their own distinct philosophical origins. That's why they are almost always separated into a criminal code and a civil code.

There are plenty of examples of conspiracy to commit civil offences. Ignoring them and using an example from criminal law, and in particular homicide, one of the most heinous of all crimes, seems unnecesary. It raises the suspicion that either the commenter is using this example merely for shock value or that his knowledge of the law is very narrow and not well-informed.

No, I think I understand the OP. That's why I said "I do not mean to disagree..." Did you catch that part?

I'm simply pointing out that for some people the news is very valuable to what they do. As you say, for the OP it might not have as much value. It depends on what you're trying to do.

I think a more interesting title would be: "The power of being able to think for yourself". For example, it's possible to be able to read the news, when it is overwhelmingly negative or even low quality news (e.g. it doesn't tell you anything you don't already know), and still derive something positive from it. And there are many examples that prove this: businesspeople who read heaps of news and still manage to accomplish quite a lot, at least in the opinion of their peers.

You may stop reading the news. But most everyone else is still reading it. And to the extent your business is concerned with some segment of that group I refer to as "everyone else", the news is a factor to consider.

Hope that's a little more clear.

pg's essay on PR as it relates to startups is a decent intro into how the news can be important for hackers.

I do not mean to disagree with the OP, but here's a thought:

What would happen if we required someone like Warren Buffet to ignore the news?

What if he was prohibited from reading a single newspaper?

What would happen?

I know many people who read multiple newspapers every day, without fail. If they were not allowed access to the news, I think their ability to function in their chosen profession would be severely impacted.

How can you make the jump from

1. copyright infringment, mainly a civil offense, that addresses speculatve monetary losses to

2. conspiracy to commit murder, a criminal offense with a history hundreds of years older than the notion of "copyright", that is aimed at preserving a human life?

How do you do that? That is an enormous leap. Is it some sort of mental gymnastics?

Is a human life more important than your "copyrighted work"? Really bizarre thinking, or maybe it's just me.