[d0mine]

if providing a link by google to an article is not publishing then why do you think providing e.g., a hyperlink to a magnet link by a torrent search engine becomes publishing of a copyrighted material?

(torrent search engine shows links to a link to a "link" to a material)

[adamjb]

The laws in Australia refer to "facilitating" copyright infringement. Whether or not a torrent website is a publisher is entirely immaterial

[d0mine]

By this logic, google "facilitates" the defamation by providing hyperlinks to the article. The court disagrees.

[denton-scratch]

"Facilitating" defamation isn't defamation, so not a crime. Facilitating copyright infringement is explicitly prohibited, whatever the definition of "publish" is.

[d0mine]

This is absurd. Where does it end? iphone allows to watch copyrighted material. Should apple be responsible for any infringement?

[denton-scratch]

I didn't make the law!

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.