If Anonymous really wanted to help WikiLeaks, they would've created a botnet to mirror Wikileaks.

What they're doing now is destructive, not constructive.

Carl Lundström is a multi-multi-millionaire. He can pay it all.

Google compares JPG and WebP at the same level of noise (PSNR). What is missing is comparing the same-size JPG and WebP images. If we can recompress JPEGs to the same size as WebP without visible loss of quality, or without loss of quality worse than WebP recompression, we should just dial down the JPG quality, not switch to WebP.

These dropouts dropped out because they were wildly successful. They didn't become wildly successful by dropping out.

Not the same act. The context matters.

By your actions and statements, usually.

I know that the DMCA is a US-only law. But "Lag (2002:562) om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster" is a Swedish law, and it specifies that liability kicks in when you become aware of infringing content (see section 18) - without specifying how that awareness is reached. So if a Swedish operator receives a DMCA complaint one could claim that the operator at that point should become aware of the presence of infringing material. It is then up to the operator to investigate and take action.

I wouldn't call it a double standard. It's the way the legal system works.

It's not just where you link, it is about what your intent was when you created the link, and many other factors. It is impossible to make a general decision without factoring in these things, and impossible to write a law that explicitly enumerates absolutely every possible situation, so we're down to judges and juries trying to make sense of it all.

Given the complexities, I think it works fairly ok.

I really have no idea exactly where the line is drawn. Ultimately it comes down to case law.

No, it appears that the MPAA/RIAA will do that for you. :)

They do. See here, and you'll see a list of URLs that aren't themselves copies of "Avatar", but that are pages that link to a torrent or something similar. You'll also see search pages that link to pages that in turn link to the content. (The "http://torrentreactor.net/search.php" ones.)

Now whether this post will be removed... well, we'll have to just wait and see.

Well, this is the score: Peter Sunde, who was one of the four convicted of TPB, said:

48 hours later, Openbittorrent was launched.

Sunde and the four have claimed that they have sold TPB, but could not show any sales contracts or money transfers, or anything else to support that they had actually sold anything to anyone. In particular, they could not name who it was that signed the contract on behalf of the buyer.

If it is now shown that Sunde or another one of the four, or someone with ties to them are behind OBT, well... I'd say they're in for some hurt.

Actually, what you just said would be true - if it weren't for the fact that Google actively removes links to infringing content. So yes, if you link to a webpage that links to an illegal torrent, you are guilty. But if you remove the link on request you are considered in the clear.

During the Pirate Bay trial, this distinction was made, and it was made clear that Google's compliance with DMCA takedown letters is the only thing that keeps them from being sued.

TPB's compliance with DMCA takedowns (or the Swedish equivalent), however, was, shall we say, not that speedy.

A note on sending DMCA takedowns to Swedish companies: It ought to work, legally speaking. Not because Sweden has DMCA, but because a Swedish entity becomes liable when they "become aware or should become aware" that they host or link to infringing content. Whether that awareness comes in the form of a DMCA takedown or by smoke signals doesn't matter.

True, the court did find that. But the law they used only requires "willful ignorance", so while different, I suspect that the same law will be used again - especially since it is the only law I know of that defines the rights and responsibilities for an internet service provider (not just providers of connectivity, but also websites etc.).

If OBT is found to be completely unaffiliated with any websites or organizations that do actively commit copyright infringement, then proving "willful ignorance" is that much harder. For example, drug lords may use GPG, but unless you can prove that whoever wrote GPG is in cahoots with said drug lords, they can't be held responsible for aiding and abetting. (Even then, the GPG author would probably not, strictly speaking, be accused of the mere act of writing crypto software.)

The suspicion is this: (1) The people behind TPB say they sold the website, but haven't been able to provide any contracts, money transfers or any trace of said sale. (2) OBT is run by the same, or nearly the same, bunch of people.

The case will be much stronger if those two points can be proven.

An analogy would be this: If I say to person A that "I'm going to kill Joe Bloke", buy a gun at place B, a map at place C and ask person D where I can find Joe Bloke, I'm probably the only one that can be held responsible. But if it then turns out that person A runs the gun shop, map shop and is the same as person D, well, A has problems.

I think the reason for the subpoena is that the Hollywood gang thinks that the people behind Open Bittorrent and The Pirate Bay are the same.

Right after the PB trial there was a lot of discussion regarding whether TPB would have been illegal if it hadn't done so much. For example, TPB was convicted because they were actually hosting torrent files, which caused them to fall under a different law than, for example, and ISP. But what if the illegal parts were dropped? Why, you'd be untouchable. The problem is then, is there a way to distribute the functionality of TPB so that the constituent websites are all legal, but taken together, they provide exactly the same service as TPB?

A little while later, Open Bittorrent opened up.

So when the next lawsuit comes up, it will not be Hollywood vs. one site that in itself isn't illegal, but Hollywood vs. a bunch of sites that taken together are claimed to be illegal. However, in order for this to work, there must be proof that the websites are really connected. That's what they're going for.

My prediction: OpenBittorrent will be convicted. TPB was found guilty because they received and hosted torrent files, which in turn triggered liability. You don't have to actually host illegal copies, as long as you receive, store information for a longer period of time than (roughly) the actual transmission of the information, and then send it to one or more consumers, you do not have "common carrier" immunity under Swedish law, and must not only not host illegal content - you must not host anything connected with any illegal acts. Such as a torrent file that is used for illegal purposes.

Now OpenBittorrent doesn't host torrent files. But it does host something else - the list of peers. It is a tracker, after all.

So I think any OBT trial will be pretty much like TPB trial. The TPB verdict showed that it is very easy (almost too easy) to become an accessory to a crime in Sweden.

I only remember this point being brought up after Apple had released the new SDK terms. It is possible that Adobe was overstating the difficulties of turning the Flash compiler into a code generator before they realized that their current application was toast.

But the originally written clause was the one I remember being used to shoot down the "generate XCode" way around.

I tried to find a reference, but couldn't find any official Adobe statement.

That your code isn't originally written in Obj-C. Technically, the difference is zero, of course. Legally it is a world of difference.

I'm afraid that's not all. Adobe did consider the obvious solution (export Flash to XCode), but that was shot down for the reason above - the code wouldn't have been originally written in ObjC.