I thought they explicitly weren't. See http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/, or https://torrentfreak.com/completely-ignoring-the-dmca-an-opt... (from earlier this year) "The Pirate Bay has refused to take anything down on copyright grounds from day one and yet it remains up today."
Is there any other indication that TPB has begun obeying DMCA requests, or are they lying?
Isohunt and others used similar arguments and lost.
This is your opinion. So far I haven't seen any US precedent for this, and it's by no means obvious that it's not infringing.
^ Am I obviously infringing as well?
Your comment I would classify as obviously non infringing. Two obvious differences (not the only two): you haven't linked to anything, and you aren't being paid any money for your comment.
Did you know TPB founders have gone to prison for copyright infringement? I think the judge did not feel their actions were "obviously not infringing".
If that's not linking, then the pirate bay doesn't link either. They supply a description and a SHA1. You have to locate the content yourself. You have to locate the people that have the content yourself.
What if TPB didn't have ads?
Then it's more complicated, and depends on other distinctions I alluded to above.
The internet is global. If N. Korea shouldn't be able to extradite you for promoting democracy, the USA shouldn't have any legal power to influence DNS.
The situation is kind of like headshops in the US. A headshop is legal if it sells "tobacco related products" but illegal if it sells "pot related products".
Just like headshops, TPB skirts prosecution by being an agnostic tracker despite everyone knowing what it's all about.
No. Founders of TPB have gone to jail, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial.
I think you instead meant to imply some sort of intent test. That gets very difficult very quickly. Figuring out how to write the RIAA's perpetual money-machine into law while not destroying section 230 or accidentally banning photocopiers is your next task.
Here is the magnet link for a zero length file.
magnet:?xt=urn:ed2k:31D6CFE0D16AE931B73C59D7E0C089C0&xl=0&dn=zero_len.fil
978-0262510875 "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs - 2nd Edition"Gun manufacturers are murderers in such a world.
They may not be subject to DMCA, but then they're "not DMCA compliant, for good reason".
I like the point @redthrowaway made. "I don't serve food to the public out of my office. Thus, I am trivially in compliance with food safety laws." In the same way, TPB are compliant with the DMCA (and also compliant with food safety laws).
Sure, it might seem like a silly defense, but it's true and it works.
This argument has largely not held up in court. See Isohunt.
I've asked elsewhere in this thread for a single example of this argument (for a torrent site) working in US courts, and nobody had one. Do you know of any?
https://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-shuts-down-after-110-millio...
There's some more detail in the Wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoHunt#Legal
As far as I know there are two issues: 1) whatever the technical details, if it can be shown that the intent is overwhelmingly to fascilitate unlicensed copying - then any search engine could be held to be illegal.
b) These other cases are old; there are technical differences between indexing magnet links and storing torrent files, not to mention running torrent trackers. While intent is still important, I'm not sure the technical differences don't matter now.
As far as I know linking to illegal content is (mostly) legal.
>While intent is still important, I'm not sure the technical differences don't matter now.
I'm not sure of this either, but the "DMCA doesn't affect hashes" argument hasn't been tested, and it's sufficiently murky that I don't think it can be pre-judged with confidence.
When The Pirate Bay falls under US jurisdiction, your request will matter.
If the laws of their country change in a way that forces them to comply with the DMCA as it is, they're still not infringing. That they aren't obligated to comply with the DMCA as it sits is kind of irrelevant to the conversation, considering the follow-on point is also true.
This is not a constructive way to have a discussion, and is unwelcome on HN.
>We don't store any patient data thus we are HIPPA compliant?
Yes, trivially so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
From your link: "For example, a child might tell his or her parent 'I ate every vegetable on my plate', when there were no vegetables on the child's plate to begin with."
You might piss off whomever your contract is with when you tell them you've been deleting data instead of storing it, and there may be grounds for a different lawsuit. But they can't say you're not HIPPA compliant. [0]
[0] I don't 100% know the specifics of HIPPA, so I'm not sure if this would really apply, because I know you need to keep detailed audits and logs of various things.