[CJefferson]

Your link doesn't seem to provide whole episodes, so might well fall under fair use.

Also, the law understands intent. Google will take down links when requested. This guy purposefully ignored take-down requests, and was clearly purposefully organising his website to pirate copyrighted material.

Now, if he should be taken to the US is another question, but in my opinion you shouldn't lower the debate by claiming what he did is particularly similar to Google's video search.

[junto]

Google was a cheap shot, but to be honest, fair use is always debatable. I was more interested in the concept of secondary/proxy linking. What if the accused had linked via a bit.ly proxy for example? What if a search engine links to a bittorrent site, that then in turn linked to copyrighted content? E.g.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fthepirateba...

Just to play devil's advocate here (and out of general interest), but why should he follow DMCA? Isn't that a United States copyright law? Where's the jurisdiction here?

[jahewson]

The DMCA gives you a get-out if you've committed a copyright infringement unknowingly via user-generated content. By serving that content you have already violated copyright under international law. But if you've been following the DMCA, then the US will (indeed they must) let you off.

[chrischen]

In the case of bit.ly: since bit.ly is used for legitimate purposes other than piracy, it can be protected by the DMCA if they comply with takedown requests. However a site which has no purpose other than to facilitate copyright infringement might be considered illegal.