I wonder how this would impact a torrent search engine hosted in Australia
(torrent search engine shows links to a link to a "link" to a material)
You're right; my spectacles-supplier makes it possible for me to watch infringing videos. So they're "facilitating".
Arguably a website operator can do something about it; Vision Express can't, and nor can Apple.
The battle between copyright maximalists and the "information wants to be free" crowd won't end until there's a copyright regime that most people think is fair. I think that means that (a) all copyright expires on the authors death, or after 70 years, whivhever comes first; (b) copyright infringement is a purely civil affair; (c) copyright holders get to sue for lost royalties, which they have to demonstrate, thus suppressing actions against people whove never made a penny from infringement.
That's how it was when I was a kid, and it seemed pretty fair. All the subsequent changes have been to favour the RIAA and the MPAA, enacted by the US government, and then rammed down the throat of the rest of the world through trade agreements and so on.
It is an interesting point though, it's not publishing but in my limited understand it just means that Google isn't bound by links that it has on its pages.
Example is btdigg which exclusively crawls and indexes magnet links from the DHT
I can give you what you need just by telling you to torrent f09c8d0884590088f4004e010a928f8b6178c2fd
That's even less than a hyperlink. It would be absolutely ridiculous to say that I'm publishing the torrent.
If sharing .torrent file is illegal, then so is the magnet. The court doesn’t care about “Um technically there is a DHT in the middle here”.
Personally I don't see that as being materially different to a magnet link.
The only difference is the DHT is acting like a kind of super-tracker.
Sure, in the same way that the outcome of an election depends on the relative amount of campaign spending by each side.
This is an example of a belief that is extremely common despite the fact that there is a mountain of evidence contradicting it and almost nothing in support.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c...
Obviously it's not going to be 100% success... but are you saying that marketing doesn't work?
But
> unlike in the general election, early fundraising strongly predicted who would win primary races.
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c...
Your own link is fairly explicit about this:
> “I think where you have to change your thinking is that money causes winning,” said Richard Lau, professor of political science at Rutgers. “I think it’s more that winning attracts money.”
> decades of research suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election, and especially not for incumbents.
> Most of the research on this was done in the last century, Bonica told me, and it generally found that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear.
> the strong raw association between raising the most cash and winning probably has more to do with big donors who can tell (based on polls or knowledge of the district or just gut-feeling woo-woo magic) that one candidate is more likely to win — and then they give that person all their money.
> 80 to 90 percent of congressional races have outcomes that are effectively predetermined by the district’s partisan makeup — and the people that win those elections are still given (and then must spend) ridiculous sums of money because, again, big donors like to curry favor with candidates they know are a sure thing.
Capitalism does not “actually exist”. It’s learned constraints on agency. I can’t just walk into Musks house and eat his food.
I can’t walk into Tesla and alter products due to my meat bag not being referred to as billionaire Elon Musk.
How much more evidence story mode still runs the world do you need?
Impartiality is the hypothetical story we tell ourselves to make us feel good about, for example, Hunter Biden taking selfies with 20g of crack cocaine while black men do 10 years or more for the same crime. There are so many examples that if this one offends your politics, let me know, and I'll provide you with examples that will comport with your preferred media source.
When Hunter Biden gets extra protection from the law, does that source more from his money or from his political status?
When Michael Milken got extra persecution from the law, was his wealth an asset or a liability?
This is well-understood and I’m not breaking any new ground here by saying so.
What I am saying that is perhaps offensive or provocative is that this happens in the USA.