This is about privacy, not piracy. In terms of music, it is always the mega-rich popstars who complain. And the record companies. The starving artist, if anything, benefits from this new system. Historically, musicians make money off shows and merchandise, not album sales. This is a good thing, musicians are now connecting like never before all around the world. As for TV, most of these shows are available for free on the internet, as long as they can advertise, the TV networks are allowing this. And if the film industry goes under, that’s unfortunate for many employees, but I think it’s about time, all they’ve been feeding us in recent years is mind-numbing garbage, maybe they should reorganize. I don’t see why anyone would want to take the side against net neutrality. This ruling is a sham.

TD editors write:

“All this for a site that provides user-submitted links to media, not storage of the media itself.”

Implied in this statement is the belief that Pirate Bay did nothing wrong. As though there were no moral hazard in these actions. Let’s put aside the questions of legal technicalities, and the loopholes that have prevented prosecution of these sites before, and just consider the morality of the actions.

If I know that someone is going to engage in unethical behavior, and I give them the means to engage in that behavior, is my action unethical as well? Let’s say I own a bar and I knowingly give alcohol to someone with a history of drunk driving. Am I not at least partially morally responsible for any negative consequences? In most of America, the law says I am.

Gloating about how these people have so far managed to skirt the legalities of copyright seemed to be the method by which we dodged the obvious moral questions involved. But we would all do well to remember that it’s still stealing, wether or not you are prosecuted for it. It’s still theft, no matter how easy it is. And people are being hurt by it. Jobs are being lost, aspirations are shattered, whole industries shut down.

Mainframe!

That is is all.  And remember, Google is coming.

The real issue here is the control of the internet. Even if these guys just shuffle information, that upsets those who profit from intellectual properties. There is a certain amount of non culpability when say a song is played over the the internet or the radio or tv and a person remembers is and sings it as he/she walks down the hall way or side walk, or should those people be arrested, fined and jailed because they sang someone else’s song?
I still not sure what this site did in the way of making money from someone’s song or whatever, but if they did, I would think the creator of that song should be paid for others making money on a song, so sue them. But fined and jailed? Definitely an attack on the internet.
I was not happy to find one has to pay to get information from the encyclopedia brittannica site(the alternative is advertizing and I consider that equally as bad if not worse) or rely on what is on wikipedia’s site. So just another wonderful form of communication being regulated, abused and misuseed just as tv and radio.