>Of course, that's all legal copyrighted content,
>because TPB owns the copyrights!

And of course, the site can't own a copyright. Various individuals can however own the copyright. There might be some company that owns the copyright as well, for example if they made the programs running. The Pirate Bay however is not such a company.

>Now, it's worth noting first of all that most small-scale
>copyright infringements are not criminal offences.

What do you base that one? Even copying just a single file can actually a criminal act. There are other exceptions though. For example copying computer software for private use is not a criminal offence.

>If TPB's goal was to help people share maybe ten or twenty
>copies of a file, then it may be they were not intending to
>help a criminal offence, despite the fact that they were
>intending to help a copyright violation.

If we disregard the fact that even for a single file it would be a possible criminal offense one can't look at the general goals of "The Pirate Bay" that is not of interest. There must be an intent by each person at trial for each specific act of copyright infringment part of the trial (I think there are some 20-30 works specified). Of course, one must also show that they also helped or took part actively for each case.

>If you intend to violate the law, and I know you intend
>to violate the law, and I purposefully help you do so,
>I can be charged.

But it needs to be an active help. You need to be involved directly and affecting the crime commited. There is for example no requirement to prevent someone from commiting a crime. Setting up a general service that for example index things people upload or provide a database for people to search and so on is in it self not such a help.

There is further a EU directive, implemented in Swedish law, that specifically says anyone providing electronic services is not responsible for the actions of its users or for materials sent through the service by users. This apply if certain requirements are met. One is that one does not intervene or control what the users send. Looking at the content and removing some content would make you not fullfill this requirement.

>I fail to see any difference between asking someone
>to tape a program for me and for me to get that same
>program via TPB and BitTorrent.

Well, the Swedish law views it differently, which is relevant to this case.

>Likewise, they refuse to remove content that is knowingly infringing
>(and taunt the owners when they are asked to remove it) seems to
>contradict their defense that they do not aid in contributing to illegal content.

As already pointed out in other posts, an EU directive says that anyone providing such electronic services should not be hold responsible for what useres sends between themselves or through the service. One requirement is that there is NO interference in what is transmitted or sent. Should they start to filter or control what their users do, they lose the protection.

Also note that in Sweden there is no requierment to actively prevent a crime you know about someone else commiting.

One other thing to note is that for the cases that are computer programs (all games I think) the part of making copies are not relevant at all since it is not a criminal offence to do so if the copy is for private use. It would be a civil case only and this is a criminal case.

One other problem was the identificatio of the location of each peer. Since only those located in Sweden could be tested by the court and the prosecutor appearantly had not or could not accurately identify which one originated from Swedne and which one originated from abroad. This WILL have a bearing also on any possible ammount they can be sued for. They can only be sued for (in Sweden and in this trial) those copies that has been made in Sweden.

>The hilarious part of that is there are no criminal
>copyright infringement laws in Sweden.

Were have you got that idea from? Most compyright infringements in Sweden can be tested under both criminal law and civil law. There are some exceptions were it can only be by civil law. For more info, se 7 Kap URL (Sewdish copyright law).

>That may be true, but new laws regarding aiding in copyright
>infringement have been introduced in recent years

No note really. Swedish law has a general section dealing with various types of aiding, preparing and other similar activities realted to crimes. They are not specific to copyright. When new EU directives has come that include such issues the conclusion has always been that swedish law allready has such provisions in the form of those general paragraphs applying to all crimes.

You are aware that many countries allow for example copying for private use which includes giving the songs to friends or family. Those in turn might do the same and someone might eventually put it out to the public and so on. Even if you "play nice" and follw the law, you may not want that info about you in those files and it can indeed concern you.

>One is typically permitted to share/post small excerpts for
>critical commentary. IANAL, but I highly doubt that sending
>an entire song to a friend is within the letter of the law.

That might be perfectly true in your country, but completely different in other countries (including those were Apple sell songs through iTunes). For example in Sweden it is perfectly legal to make (a few) copies for private use which includes giving them to relatives and friends.

>It's hard to keep up with all these different users who,
>purely out of coincidence, all happen to be using the exact
>same roundabout logic, have the same hatred of companies protecting
>their investment, and all make the same wild, baseless claims.

Exactly WHAT wild, baseles claim did I make in the post you replied to?

Were have I shown any hatred to "companies protecting their investment"?

I do however have the opinion that if the "protecting their investment" includes prevent me from for example re-selling something I bought, or preventing me from re-installing a program in the future or demanding that there is DRM installed on my computer especially one that will not be removed with the game, then it is ver bad acting by the company. Perhaps you are of the opinion that any and all critisim or complain equals hatred and should not be allowed and that consumers should just accept anything that companies do with the argument "we protect our investment"?

For the record, for me, buying a game is an investment, I I also protect that investment and want to make sure that I can use it in the same way anything else I buy without the maker interfering with that in ways I gave examples of above. You seem to not accept that. Sad.

>The answer to that, of course, is to not agree
>to a license that explicitly states "this license
>is not transferable".

Which only applies to a country were you would need such a license. In others the claim of preventing reselling is a valid one.

>Yes, because I'm sure DRM has nothing to do with piracy...

Only in part, it also affects normal use of the product, controling your installation and for example reselling which has nothing to do with piracy.

>And people who steal games are assholes and are ruining
>the gaming industry,

I would say they might ruining whatever shope they are stolen from. It would not affect the game companies.

>Not to mention your hatred of companies protecting
>their rights is solely cause by pirates, so you
>too can only agree with that.

What rights are you talking about? Controling such things as how someone that buys a game can install or use the game? Controling how someone can re-sell a game? Controling what unremovable DRM products are put on customers computers? Strange rights you claim they should have.

You seems to use "piracy" as an excuse for adding any and all sorts of control to a product that in many cases has nothing to do with piracy or have severe effects not realted to piracy. Just scream "piracy" and everyone should accept anything and anything is excused appearantly.

If we disregard the fact that the specific Class-Action suit was in USA and look at the games, EA and their DRM one quickly see that there are problems.

>You have no right to install software.

Yes, you have in many countries that "right" without having to get any permission, licens or enter into a cotract.

>It's an act of making a copy (in fact even running off a
>cd is because you are making a copy of the executable
>imagine in RAM) and this what copyright is all about.

Many countries has specific exceptions for such copying making it a non infringing act. To avoid further confusion, no many countries does not have the "own" requirement USA has for this exceptions. Leaglly aquired the software is enough (which is what the WIPO treaty had, USA decided to make it own instead, other countries did not). This makes the whole "you don't own it you license it" meaningless is such countries.

So no, you don't need any license and no you don't need to enter into any EULA or other contract to run or install the software.

Of course, as has allready been pointed out by others, the EULA does in the end not mention the DRM in questions so it doesn't appearantly help, even in countries were EA can rely on their EULA.