You are correct, and it's nice to see someone actually doing research instead of parroting sound bites that all to often permeates people's thinking and clouds their reason and judgement.

The Iranian government has the sovereign right to do whatever it likes in regards to communication, and the fact that Google, and american company, who offers free services in order to collect information of which it then uses to make a profit may be something they are not interested in as the American government and media have expressed a strong opposition to anything they do.

Iran has been labeled as part of the "axis of evil", a "terrorist state" etc...

First. Who have they attacked?.... no body.... What have they done? .... speak out against the actions of the U.S. and Israel?... When is that a crime to denounce another nation's actions? The U.S. does it all the time, very much a double standard and hypocritical.

People seem to somehow forge the "weapons of mass destruction" argument for invading Iraq.. We attacked and destroyed the infrastructure of a country, spent billions of dollars, and paid in our own blood.... for nothing...

And yet when the press starts up the hype machine against Iran just as they did against Iraq people buy into it again...

If Iran builds nuclear weapons the reason really would have to be the U.S. We are the one's making threats and carrying them out.

If you live in a neighborhood and your neighbor to your left is raped, robbed, and murdered by somebody in a white van.... and also to your right the same thing has happened... and now their is a creepy white van that's slowly driving up and down your street with fingers pointing at you outside.... would you go get a gun to protect yourself?

Of course you would.

People really need to leave Iran alone, just because it disagrees with what the U.S. and Israel does is no reason to pile in the white van and become the villain you think the other is...

Look in the mirror... that's where the real evil resides.

Hi yes your argument looks good but you made a mistake HERE now I'm not going to say what is wrong with HERE but HERE shows that you don't know the difference.

If you are going to point out a "big mistake" please illustrate how the "big mistake" is a "big mistake"

Specifically that "big mistake" was in context to illustrate how poor the justification for piracy that "I want to preview the movie before I decide to go/buy it via torrent"

I didn't say steal the food or theft anywhere.

I was illustrating the defined process by the establishment of which you consume food.

You order you consume you pay. That's how restaurant's work

Of which torrents are a way of circumventing the defined process by the establishment of which you can consume their product.

You select you pay you watch/listen/use that's how movies,music, and software works.

Those sites change the defined process of commercial trade established creators by removing the PAY option.

If they had just partnered with the studios and took a 30% standard distributor fee and offered a "PAY" option before you could click on a torrent link they would not have been sued or persecuted and would have made money, and probably the studios would have worked with them to make their infrastructure better, but now they are on the run, facing fines, or imprisonment.

Way to go rebels you really showed the world nothing, but how stupid you are.

Parent is absolutely correct. Please mod it up, and go ahead and mod me flaimbait or troll I know it's an unpopular position on here, but than again most people that stand up for fairness get shot at.

And don't tell me well the lawsuits the MPAFIAA and RIAFFIA aren't fair because I agree they are extreme, but than again so is the brazen attitude that piracy is OK. It's like Neocons vs Anarchists
both are extremes and both are stupid.

First off people on here need to stop hiding behind the veil of "Oh they are trying to restrict information" and "The don't host the files so how are they at fault!? defense. That is not working any more and it never did.

When the internet came about it was like the wild west. No rules or regulations an open space. But without law things got out of hand quick looting, murder, gambling, prostitution etc. The laws of the internet are now being written in countries and when it comes down to data links to replicas of copy-written material there weren't any rules set forth to protect the works or understanding of what was really going on to try those who were "just hosting links yo".

Yes isohunt, the piratebay, and others are indeed accessories to piracy. Which is against the law.

If you give a map of the building to a thief knowing full well what he intends to take and he robs a bank yeah you are liable.
"But I didn't rob it I was just showing him paper and ink?!" doesn't work.

And people need to learn fast that the free ride days are going to come to an end. If you want to watch a movie, download a song, or use a piece of commercial software buy it. Stop being so damn cheap, and stop saying "well I want to preview what I see before I buy it" is a huge load of crap.

There are trailers/teasers for movies as well as selected scenes released for free for you to preview them.

There are plenty of free streaming samples of songs, on amazon and itunes, and lala, and last.fm, and pandaora, and XM/Sirius , and traditional radio, and internet radio

There are typically trial versions of most software applications

So really the preview attitude is really a poor defense.

I can't go into a restaurant and preview an entire meal and then decide if I want to pay for it. You order you consume you pay for it.
And don't say "well I can send it back.. at the theaters I can't send back a movie!"... actually you can.... within 30 minutes of a film's start time you can tell the box office that you didn't like it and they will give you back your money or venue credit. Got another excuse captain cheapo?

But you haven't had to pay with this loop hole before?!...waaaaah.... and now you don't wanna?....waaaaah

Tough shit suck it up and pay what you owe.

If you don't want to pay THEN don't watch/download/use it!

I am not in it for the money. I do it because I love it, and frankly it's all I would ever want to do, but I've seen lots of setbacks for my friends in the art world because it is changing.

For people that have a profession and do art on the side then art is a hobby not a profession.

I know lots of professional artists that make their salary, yes some artists are for hire or commission, in fact I know many today who are very successful create there own companies and pay themselves a salary.

It is always about the work, but if you are a serious artists as in you want to do it everyday just like a regular job then you need income from your work, and as the model is changing because people believe music should be free and no copyright blah blah blah then it's just like every year you are getting a pay cut because ASCAP royalties are down and continue to dwindle.

Artists will still find a way, but why punish them for being so good that you want to listen or watch it? Just buy the damn thing and move on, but apparently this "concept" of paying for entertainment is apparently ridiculous.

See what effective has happened is that the good in this case "entertainment" has become gigantically abundant and accessible.

If a good is abundant and is not scarce it's perceived value goes down.

And that's the problem I have with the pirate bay. Because honestly who the hell are they to make a work less scarce? Did they ask the artist if that is okay?

While everyone is clamoring for their rights and freedom where is the artists rights? See this I do whatever I want complete freedom is complete bullshit.

A society built on respect is much better than a society that is on complete freedom. One is peace and the other is chaos and for some reason people on here don't see it that way.

You want the bank to reimburse you if someone hacked your bank account right?

Well then why the hell do people not stand up for artists works? it's very similar.

Why not build something like an orbital Roomba... maybe with a large magnetic attachment that will grab stuff.

Seems a lot better than a laser. Then you just have to collect the Space Roomba empty it out and send it off again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA_OXKXSR04

I think a design like the whale shark (obviously not to scale...well maybe how big is the junk?)

Just have it float around and filter in bits of debris.

A giant whale shark space roomba... now that would be awesome..

-- With fricken laser beams! best of both worlds!

Google complies with the government more than you think.

They haven't complied with requests to take down links at the request of various companies.

No it is correct as this interferes with foreign commerce.

What is this Iran bs you spout.... typical of an AC...

Okay here is how it breaks down.

1. They are indeed subject to U.S. copyright law and here is how:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ccmanual/04ccma.html#A.1.

Several of the statutes discussed in this manual require an interstate or foreign jurisdictional hook. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. Â 1029(a) (prohibiting access device fraud "if the offense affects interstate or foreign commerce"); 18 U.S.C. Â 2510(12) (defining "electronic communication" to mean any "transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence ... that affects interstate or foreign commerce").

Failure to establish the "interstate" basis for federal jurisdiction can lead to dismissal or acquittal.

Copyright charges are Federal and subsequently interstate can be shown with any country outside of Sweeden and also within the U.S. as well being allowed access to the same file links. Now typically this is about access fraud, but since it also includes disrupting commerce it still is applicable. (this would be the toughest stretch. If a US judge says yes this is applicable game over for TPB)

  Section 1030(a)(2)(C) requires a more particular nexusâ"the unlawful conduct itself must involve an interstate or foreign communication. See 18 U.S.C. Â 1030(a)(2)(C).

Prosecutors should be prepared to offer evidence that the conduct in fact traversed state lines.

Easy to prove there

Useful evidence might include testimony as to the geographic location of computer servers. Bear in mind that even a "local" provider may utilize communication facilities in another state.

# 2. Extraterritoriality

Absent evidence of a contrary intent, the laws of the United States are presumed not to have extraterritorial application. See United States v. Cotten, 471 F.2d 744, 750 (9th Cir. 1973).
 
This presumption against extraterritoriality may be overcome by showing "clear evidence of congressional intent to apply a statute beyond our borders."

Pretty clear here with the "Oh I am in Sweeden your laws don't matter to me way over here"

  United States v. Gatlin, 216 F.3d 207, 211 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted).

"Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States.

Aha so they are indeed liable and can be charged under U.S. law

Now here is where it get's really good... what if there was a precedent for extradition from U.S. to Sweeden. This in effect would show that the U.S. has complied with Sweeden's requests, and similar pretense.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/670/670.F2d.722.81-1785.html

Tada! Precedent! So in fact under terms of international extradition agreements Sweeden should comply with the request.

And that's how the Pirate Bay could be brought under U.S. Federal Copyright law.

It is indeed possible.. While they can cry "Oh we are in Sweeden your laws do not apply to us"

True... UNLESS you disrupt foreign commerce and by being an accessory to piracy they are indeed interfering with foreign commerce as an enabling accessory.

I am all about the freedom of the net. we just need a way to protect the artists.. somehow there is a model for it... i hope it all works out...

The artistic works are private believe it or not. They are available for public consumption but are still private.

See this is where the line got blurred/skewed.

You give your doctor your medical records

Producers give a distributor their film to distribute.

The doctor gives your medical records to a specialist with your permission to view it under the pretense that they don't replicate it and distribute it.

Distributors give the producers work to a consumer under the pretense that they will not
replicate and distribute it.

The parallel is there.