[jeffool]

I don't know how to convey the opposite opinion in a way you've likely not heard before. I'll go to extremes.

And a handgun is made to kill people. But we generally agree there's a limited context in which that is acceptable, so we allow it. If I want to store my files online, copywritten or not, there's nothing illegal about it.

[cynicalkane]

The accusations are that Megaupload was in conspiracy to commit piracy, knowingly working with mass pirates to make large and legally significant amounts of money for themselves, and the indictment presents IM logs and communications that allegedly prove it.

If a file host is like a gun shop, then Megaupload was allegedly like an arms dealer.

[jeffool]

Yes, that's the allegation. However, the post I replied to seemed to be saying that "what's the big deal? This service can only be about piracy." I'm saying "no, we don't all agree that this service inherently exists to serve piracy. There are legit uses that exist, and the service is a valid one."

And besides, the best analogy to digital lockers? Actual lockers. Their purpose is "hold stuff". If someone uses them for drugs, it's that person who is in trouble. And to presume the intent of the existence of lockers, even if one bus station does cater to gunmen, is silly.

We should all be able to look at lockers and say "there's nothing wrong with that."

[cynicalkane]

Well, in general if you work with criminals to use X to commit crimes, that's committing a crime, where X is in {file sharing, guns, lockers, most other things...}

The US gov't's actual allegations are not particularly exceptional. If you're of the mind to worry about this case, I think there are other things to worry about in this case.

[trance]

Arms dealer? Is that the analogy you're going to use for file distribution?

Maybe you can think of something even more menacing to compare Megaupload with. Nuclear terrorists perhaps? Satan and his legion of demons?

Nice framing on ya pal.

[jeffool]

I'm down voting you because, to be fair, it was me that started it. In the post he replied to I compared it to guns, and file storage (not piracy) to killing. He was going with my analogy.

[dhimes]

How about: If I illegally photocopy a textbook at a printing shop, is the printing shop criminally culpable?

[protomyth]

If the printing shop actively helped in the photocopying and promoted that they would photocopy textbooks, then they are criminally liable. This is why most copy shops make you sign the stupid copyright form when you ask them to copy stuff for you.

Not saying that's what happened here (haven't read the court materials).

[alan_cx]

No, you go after the paper and ink companies. While we are at it, go after the ISP, sorry, highways authorities. After all the road facilitated your ability to photocopy. How about the electricity supplier?

The world has gone utterly mad.

[adventureful]

Legally, yes, sometimes the source of the copying is in fact criminally culpable (the print shop), but usually only if they understood what was going on.

If a print shop in Los Angeles were to serve a high volume of student customers, and the print shop knew they were breaking the law by making copies of textbooks and selling them, the print shop would have a massive liability over its head. It would require proving that the print shop knew what the students were doing.

[yashchandra]

"It would require proving that the print shop knew what the students were doing"

Exactly. It would require proving. The article is arguing that it did not happen

[jeffool]

Yes, that's what's at trial here. But in the post I replied to, I was taking issue with the insinuation that "OF COURSE that's what was happening here!" As if to imply online storage with easy download is inherently about piracy.