So I can see how someone might mull.
Of course, making any copyright-infringing link illegal would be far too heavy-handed, but I don't think that's a likely decision here.
http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/367
PS: A more interesting question is if saying we don't host Hollywood crap if you want that go to [the pirate bay] without linking to any specific material.
Let's go after the big guys before the little guys, eh?
What you get on the Pirate Bay is descriptions of these links. So it's more like:
<a href=magnet:some-random-string>Avatar HD</a>
Trick is, that description may or may not actually be true. The content is submitted by PB users. The PB, AFAIK, doesn't actually vet this information. And, BTW, not all of the content linked to on the Pirate Bay is actually pirated. You can find Linux distros there, for example.
Look, I'm a filmmaker. I believe in copyright (for limited terms), and I believe in using the law as a mechanism to enforce the interests of copyright holders. But making it a crime to link to a page that contains unlicensed material is going way too far IMHO.
(BTW, the sleaze and malware make pretty effective deterrents for the general public to use the PB. You may have noticed that Hollywood is still in business despite the fact that the PB is still operating.)
Exactly this. Get back to me when we have a sane copyright regime in the US and, for that matter, the rest of the world. Until then, pardon me if I'm not bothered when people pirate content.
Yup. However, don't forget that it takes two to do the crony capitalism tango -- private- and public-sector actors. :-)
Profiting off illegal content is already illegal by itself and all these special cases should be left to courts to decide instead of throwing around overly broad blankets
> Profiting off illegal content is already illegal by itself
That is not so easy and depends on your definition of "profiting".
Anyway, I crafted my link for comedic value rather than "realism", and then my point was that someone could put, on a web page in their own full control, a link that points to pirated copyrighted material beyond reasonable doubt. You talk about the difficulty of a site with user-submitted content to place limits on what that content can be, which is relevant if someone proposes draconian copyright enforcement measures, but it does not refute my point. As to PB having non-pirated content - sure, and the red light district probably has businesses that sell food, but PB is like my link example in that nobody would buy a claim that its main use isn't pirating copyrighted content.
Again - perhaps it's reasonable to have laws letting people get away with it because any alternative laws are worse (or we could have no copyright law, etc.) All I'm saying is, you don't have to be completely ignorant to say, hey, there are guys who don't only piss into the swimming pool but they do so standing on the springboard, and how about we discuss ways to stop them.
Also, and somewhat independently from the above, you mention in a sister comment that you're a filmmaker. That's interesting - I didn't know you were - and I guess I'm an aspiring filmmaker myself. But that is different from being dependent on the income from filmmaking. Someone trying to live off their own films is in a pretty tight spot right now because basically they compete against a near-infinite amount of de-facto free-as-in-beer content. You mention that Hollywood is alive and well but many in Hollywood disagree, it hurts them a lot - as to someone with a smaller budget, making a profit is unlikely. I don't know how matters could be better, though perhaps if it were illegal to sell/give up the authors' rights, and if we'd be forced to pay per view or some such, and the enforcement of it all was practical, things would be better. Or they might have been worse, I dunno...