If there's a levy to cover for alleged damages caused by an action, then said action cannot be illegal. Illegal actions are to be prosecuted, not overlooked in exchange for a payment. Therefore, in countries where "a certain amount per blank DVD" (or CD, or whatever) is paid, making a copy of copyrighted content falls under "fair use" provisions and is not "kinda-sorta-infringement". In fact, even without a levy in place it could still be fair use.

In France? Last I heard about that was the French Supreme Court ruling that such measures were against the French Constitution, so you might want to double-check that.

Just in case you weren't being ironic (that doesn't usually get through very well on the Interwebs): Copyrighted != illegal to download

Banned? No, they didn't. What they did was simply not making it mandatory (i.e. not a EU-level law), but members of the EU can still have such measures in their national laws.

And who was it that responded to me saying "stop being an asshole"?

That spelling is correct.

It counts, when you "trim" parts that are relevant to the meaning of the quote. Also, you saying something's irrelevant doesn't make it so.

Not really, but I guess there's nothing I can do if you see it that way. Just a bit of advice: if someone doesn't say "Aye, sir" to your every word, that doesn't mean he's being an asshole.

Do you know what "figuratively speaking" means? Or what "man up" means?

Guess I'll have to remind you that not even once have I said anything about the guest being a guest, but rather about the neighbour knowing that he was a guest. Really, are you even reading what I write? That's the second time you prove you aren't.

Anyway, specifically stating that the hypothesis happens on Earth is ridiculous. Specifically stating that the neighbour knows that the guest is a guest, and of whom is he a guest, is not only not ridiculous, but necessary, since there are other possibilities with the same or a simillar outcome (happening outside of Earth, one the other hand, not so much unless you happen to be Orson Scott Card).

Oh, so when someone's wrong it's OK to be an asshole (which I never was, it's clear to everyone reading this that you were the first and only to resort to insulting the other part). And the anti-social autistic is none other than me. Great.

I have nothing more to say to you, you've proved that you're unable to take criticism, much less understand it, and that you're barely able to be a part of any civilized society or community.

That's irrelevant. Women can "man up" just fine.

TL;DR: Please sugar-coat your every word when talking to me. I have a fragile heart.

Which obviously, I will not do. I call things as I see them, and if you can't take it, two words: man up.

Because you say so?

Again, I never denied that your hypothesis served its purpose. I think it's like the second or third time I say this.

Really? I'd have never noticed had you not stated it...

Again, the dots were connected by this particular reader just fine, thank you very much. Are you really getting the point of my posts at all?

This should be fun.

The second quote was a reference to how the analogy served its purpose, the first one was a reference to how it was a good example worded poorly. I see no problem here, except for the poor wording on my part, but I'd assume that you of all people should be able to forgive that.

Nor here. Your proper adressing of those points happened after I objected to how you had adressed (or rather, failed to adress) them previously. And the first quote (which you mutilated to your convenience, by the way) is unrelated to the second one: the fact that the reason behind the subpoena in your example is because the neighbour knows that the other dude was my guest (and that fact is something you explicitly added a posteriori, after I suggested that merely implying it was insufficiently clear) doesn't mean that it's a necessary precondition for the subpoena, just that it's the one you chose.

For Pete's sake... How many times do I have to repeat that I wasn't criticising your argument, but the exposition of said argument?
Also, if you really think that second quote proves that I did not make the connection, you need to read it again.

Linking is linking. "But linking to an infringing file is not the same as linking to a website that links to an infringing file, which in turn is not the same as linking to a website that links to a website that links to an infringing file", I hear you say. Well, that was exactly my point: if it's the act of linking that matters, regardless of the level of indirection, linking to infringing files is the same as linking to websites that link to infringing files (with any number of intermediate steps); if the level of indirection matters (that is, what is illegal is only linking to infringing files), then nobody should be liable for linking to websites that link to infringing files (again, with any number of intermediate steps).

Furthermore, in the first case whoever sues would have to be able to prove that the person being sued knew that infringing files could be accessed from the sued person's website, once more with any number of intermediate steps. So they'd have to effectively prove that the defendant browsed about half of the Internet starting with his own website, and in doing so found infringing content. Which is ridiculous.

Therefore, if my actions are the same regardless of there being any infringement, and I have no way of knowing if there's any infringement, and I never admit that it's my intention to aid in said infringement, it's OK... Well, then the OBT guys have it easy, they just have to deny that they intended to help people to infringe.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that your explanation is lacking. People can still get the point of a badly explained example. Hell, I myself got the point, do I really have to repeat that it's not the point that I'm arguing, but the exposition of said point?

Again, get off yourself. Do I have to remind you that I made that simple inference just fine, as shown by my reference to the missing information probably being implied for the sake of the argument?

Excuse me, what? Now I know you're not even making the slightest effort to read and/or understand my posts. If anything, it would be "but I wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated that your neighbour knows that the person that damaged his plant is your guest". And even then it wouldn't be a correct interpretation of my words, because I do not wonder if it needs to be more clearly stated: I'm certain that it needs to be more clearly stated. Not because I don't see it being implied, not because I don't get the point, but because there are other possibilities that render the whole hypothesis moot, so it's best to explicitly rule them out from the start.

Please, if you don't even get what I'm saying refrain from discussing it. It only serves to make me lose time I won't ever get back, and to embarrass you.

Get off yourself. Specially considering you just proved you don't even understand what I'm saying. In fact, you don't even understand what you're saying: since when is my neighbour knowing that the other dude was a guest of mine a necessary precondition for the neighbour to a suit involving either my guest or me? After all (and that was one of the points of my first reply to you) he can subpoena every neighbour just in case they know anything. And that should backfire, of course, one can't go just filing suits "just in case".

How do you call it when the same act (linking) is punished or unpunished depending on the level of indirection of said act? Or when an act that may or may not be illegal (because hosting torrents or linking to them is only "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement if the use of said torrents is copyright infringement) is punished despite the inability of the person being sued to know if there was any infringement?

Trying and failing.

How do they know my intentions, by the way? They can't assume I intend to aid on infringing copyright since I have no way of knowing if any given use of what I offer (be it a link, a tracker, or anything else) is infringing. Therefore, it is clear that my intention is not to aid on infringing, because for that to happen I would need to know for sure that there's infringing acts being carried out and not do anything to prevent them.
It's like the old comparison about the guy that sells guns: unless he knew I intended to kill someone, selling me a gun wasn't "aiding and abetting" murder. By that logic, unless I know at least one of the guys accessing the torrent I link to is committing copyright infringement, I'm not aiding and abetting copyright infringement. And given the fact that I have no way of knowing that...

The ones being sued disagree. I, despite not being sued (or having been sued), disagree.

Then they would get sued because even if the uploader had permission to distribute, the downloader didn't have permission to download. Then they would have to make it so you can't access their tracker to download any given file unless you show them proof that you have permission to download it...

To facilitate non-infringing filesharing, obviously. He who runs the tracker has no way of knowing if any given download or upload associated to the tracker constitutes infringement.

That is, if they have the resources.

I can't stop if I haven't started. You, on the other hand...

But you didn't specifically state that the owner of the plant knew it, which was exactly my point. Could it be that you started learning how to read and write last week? 'Cause it sure seems so.

No, we're dealing with a craptabulous analogy and your inability to properly word what you want to communicate. Stating that X is a guest of Y (which is what you stated) does not imply that Z knows that X is a guest of Y (which is the core of your example).

Not really. It's your analogy that seems complicated because of your failure in properly covering certain details.

You're in no position to tell me to shut up. The analogy and the hypothetical are fine, what is not fine is the way you explain it. And the only one that's trolling here is you. So get off yourself and shut up. And learn to behave like the adult I'd assume you are, and not like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism. Grow the fuck up.

Nice double standard. There is no reason to sue me if I link to a page that links to an infringing torrent, and not sue me if I link to a page that links to a page that links to an infringing torrent. Both are links to non-infringing material.
Then again, there is no reason to sue me if I link to a page that links to an infringing torrent, since I need not know what that page links to. Furthermore, the page might have started linking to the infringing torrent after I linked to the page: am I supposed to regularly visit all pages I link to, and cease linking to them if they start linking to infringing torrents? Oh, wait, the MPAA/RIAA will do that for me.

Bottom line: the whole thing is getting pretty retarded. Someone please inject some common sense in the brains of those guys.

Which is something I didn't do.

Great, 'cause I didn't intend to attack the argument. I was just pointing out how it's not a good analogy.

Except it wasn't. I fail to see where you explicitly say the owner of the plant knows that the person responsible for damaging it is a guest of mine. OK, so it might have been implied for the sake of the argument, but that raises the question of how he knew, provided he knew neither me nor my guest. I take it that I told him myself?

*agrees*

And I would obey that order. My complaint was not about the results of the subpoena, but rather about the reasons behind it. You have now properly adressed that, however, so I shall say no more about this.

Except violating the GPL is illegal pretty much anywhere. Sharing pop music and shitty hollywood movies, on the other hand, not so much.