[PM_Tech]

Except we all know it is. Just like I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for.

IT communities seem to think Judges are stupid or that the actions of general crowd are somehow excused by the niche applications of a technology. That is not the way society or common sense works.

[Crito]

In sane jurisdictions lockpicks are perfectly legal for everyone (not just licensed locksmiths) because, although people people may claim that "we all know what they are for", tools should not be illegal just because they can be used for something illegal.

Lockpicks typically only become illegal when illegal intent can be proved in that particular case. This is as it should be.

[jjoonathan]

> I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for.

We don't know whether they're for the purposes of robbery, professional locksmithing, sport, or education. So no, we don't both know that they're for illegitimate purposes, which is the relevant distinction (as opposed to "are they for picking locks or not" which is neither here nor there, although it's a piece of misdirection which would do a prosecuting attorney proud). Thankfully, neither legislators nor judges are that willfully obtuse. In all but 4 states of the US, lockpicks are not prima facie illegal for unlicensed citizens to carry.

http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues

By this very analogy popcorntime should be legal to create, legal to host, legal to download, legal to possess, and illegal to use for piracy. As it should be.

[angersock]

It's not that we think they're stupid.

It's that "common sense" is more a function of good advertising than, you know, what actually makes sense.

It's "common sense" that pedestrians should stay out of streets--except that that was the result of careful lobbying by auto makers in the early 1900s.

It's "common sense" decades ago that cigarettes didn't cause harm to anyone --except that they do.

It's "common sense" that piracy is tantamount to theft--except that copying a file does not deprive the original owner of their information.

"Common sense" is a tired refrain used by people who are either too narrow-minded to actually think through policies or who are shilling for a larger player.

Maybe you should start thinking critically about why things are the way they are and whether or not that's actually necessary--after all, that's just common sense.

[PM_Tech]

It is common sense that pedestrians should stay out of streets. And for many years in the UK the pedestrian had the right of way; right up until a Judge was smart enough to realise it is easier for a pedestrian not to step into high moving traffic than it is for a 2000 kilogram lump of metal hurtling along at 30-40MPH to accomodate such idiots.

So now, the law is balanced again. Pedestrians are given safe crossing points but the roads belong to vehicles.

It was never common sense that cigarettes didn't cause harm. It was a lack of medical research.

It is common sense that piracy is theft. You the deprivation argument is utter bullshit. Otherwise you won't mind if I make copies of all of your house keys; car keys and private documentation. After all; I am not depriving you of the originals and they are just a series of atoms. No biggie.

Seriously; just grow up.

[angersock]

Here, try reading:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19962/when-we-lost-...

Roads didn't "belong" to vehicles--in fact, it was generally considered that the driver of the larger vehicle in an accident was at fault, which is common sense.

As for cigarettes, consider the old ads:

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212_17...

As for piracy--look, taking my keys (even to make a copy) requires the temporary loss of access to them, whereas with files it does not. Arguments against copyright infringement cannot hang on stealing, because it is plainly not stealing: instead, you have to construct them as being about the infringement on somebody's right to control access to their works (which is a bit more subtle, and far from settled).

You need to read more and talk less, and maybe you'll learn something. I don't blame you for being brainwashed by the societal norms these days, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to google your way to success.

[PM_Tech]

"You need to Google your way to success"

I suppose that says it all! What a brilliant demonstration of exactly why you should be ignored.

Keep up the good work, you are a fine example of modern reasoning.

[llamataboot]

So should we outlaw the distribution of speech materials that teach how to make lockpicks?

[iopq]

You could take down the pirate bay legally because most of its use as a search engine is for illegal content.

Of course you would also have to take down torrent client repository because most people torrent illegal content. We know that most people who DOWNLOAD videos get copyrighted material because free to watch videos are usually available to stream.

Technically you could then take down Media Player Classic repository. Of course it just facilitates watching torrents and bootlegged DVDs.

Popcorn time is literally bittorrent + media player + search engine. It's just a convenient package. And as we've shown all of those things are illegal.

Do you see how slippery the slope is?

[justizin]

the pirate bay has been taken down several times. ;)

[angersock]

And yet it keeps coming back!

Perhaps there is a reason for this?

[res0nat0r]

Because people really like being able to download movies, music and games without paying for them?

[PM_Tech]

It's not a slippery slope at all. It's quite clear cut.

If a shop was distributing fenced goods or human traffic we wouldn't allow it to remain in business because they also distribute free and legitimate groceries.

Do you see how slippery the slope is? You have left from the tiny tiny tiny niche use of file transfer for free content to the massive industrious downloading of intellectual property.

As long as you are still being paid your salary though...easy to have a faux-morally superior position when it is not your efforts being ripped off.

[iopq]

You seem to miss that this project is based on three legal programs: a search engine, a torrent client and a media player. What next, ban search engines from displaying illegal content?

[forrestpitz]

I guess the question is should the makers of lockpicks be punished for how they are used (or for that matter be stopped from distributing their lockpicks). There are plenty of commercially available products that can be use for illegal activities but we don't prevent them from being sold (let alone given away for free)

[justizin]

yes, but lock picking tools are legal.

the 'we all know it is' argument holds no legal water. the law must be enumerated and explicit, providing guidelines for responsible behavior and drawing lines which one must cross in order to be in violation of the law.

[smtddr]

So... I'm curious, do you think a DMCA takedown on my youtube video[1] about cracking software would be fair?

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5VlvrlTNmM

[PM_Tech]

Yes. Unless you think someone should be allowed to post videos of themselves breaking into your house and raping your family?

A crime is a crime. That's it. If you don't like copyright then advocate it's removal but we live in a consensus based society so if you lose you shut up about it.

[angersock]

Really? You advocate pulling down a video about what is effectively a debugging technique, just because the case study is breaking some DRM?

Also, you continually compare this to physical crimes, some banal (theft) and other repugnant (rape); in doing so, you cheapen your arguments and make your point, however defensible, unable to be taken seriously.

"a crime is a crime" is a tautology and cannot be reasoned with or discussed in any useful fashion. Your claim about "consensus-based society" is also plainly false, considering the forms of government in most of the West and even a cursory glance through history.

[PM_Tech]

Is your argument that certain crimes are not crimes in your eyes?

You must see how that is completely incompatible with any functioning society. You have decided arbitrarily, in opposition to the majority of society according to our legal and civic models, that you are going to ignore the law regarding DRM?

That is fine. But you would be the first to call the police if people decided to ignore the law and it negatively impacted you. Your hypocritcal attitude is equalling breathtaking and juvenile.

Ultimately you believe "the law should stand except when I want something; then I should be allowed to steal it because the internetz and copyright is slaveries and yada yada...

Honestly. Grow up.