It doesn't save causality, though. It doesn't matter if the signal travels from point A to point B faster than light, or just magically appears at point B without travelling the distance. In either case, you can set up a messaging system which sends a signal back to point A before the first signal is emitted.

Not sure if you're just trolling, but: causality would be violated when you sent a signal back to the source of the first signal. If one of the objects were moving faster than light, it could be set up so the response signal arrives before the first signal is sent

No, it just implies that causality can be broken in all other reference frames as well, as long as you can send signals to/from an object moving faster than light from the frame.

Yes. You could send a signal to the object travelling faster than light, which could then wait a moment, send it back, and it would arrive earlier than it was sent.

The chunk would need to be relocated to somewhere where it had the same potential energy (e.g, slightly closer to the sun), or the difference in potential energy would need to be taken from somewhere.

Of course, the same problem would prevent ships from warping out of a solar system without expending huge amounts of energy in a very short time to increase the ship's potential energy. Circumventing this problem without expending the energy, would violate the conservation of energy, and provide a way to produce unlimited energy. Just warp water to the top of a mountain, and let it run down again, driving a turbine, over and over again.

... what are you waiting for? Build one already!

P.S. Not just banned from publishing, which Lolita was in many places, but also illegal to possess.

It's not hard to write in a few exemptions for police and people who are authorised to handle the evidence and testimony. After all, police can confiscate narcotics and keep it at the police station without having to arrest each other for illegal possession.

The real problem starts when the trials need to be investigated by, for example, the press. It's not uncommon for child abuse cases to be full of exaggerations, lies and other absurdities. Making it illegal to possess the written testimony, would make it impossible to reveal what's going on, even for journalists.

Lolita was called worse than "titillating trash" when it was published, and the author was called a "pervert". If a similar law had existed back then, it would most likely have been banned.

Correct, there are people who find "Lolita" vile. And more importantly, at the time it was published, it was banned in many places. It's only in retrospect it's considered an important part of literary history.

If we outlawed written depictions of sexual abuse, we could write in exceptions for literary classics, but that would only protect those works who are *already* considered classics. It would prevent new classics from being created.

Clearly, he's never seen My Little Pony fanart...

But without proper words to describe it, the problem is contained to the precious few people who have the capability for independent thought.

What do you mean? Newspeak has always existed.

It sounds like you're overdue for another re-education.

Correct. Like I wrote, he admitted he had a talk with the prosecutor about Internet piracy in general. That US diplomats contacted the Swedish government and asked them to take care of the Pirate Bay problem just before that, and the public prosecutor changed his mind about Pirate Bay just after that, was, of course, pure coincidence.

Ok, let's talk about the reasoning. Huge damages (by Swedish standards) were awarded because the copyright violations were considered to be "commercial". However, the prosecutor never proved that the Pirate Bay founders earned any money from the site. They only proved that their ad seller in Israel had made a profit. They were found guilty of commercial infringement because a subcontractor hade made a profit! That's like saying the Red Cross is a commercial organisation because the company they buy their trucks from makes a profit.

Since the founders still seem to have a modest lifestyle, I doubt they made any significant amounts of money from the site.

They were also judged as a collective, even though they had very different degrees of involvement in the site. Peter Sunde (brokep) wasn't really one of the founders; he was just a supplier. He was found guilty because, on one occasion, he had agreed to collect an invoice the Pirate Bay made out to an ad buyer. That's like saying a collection agency is accessory in any crimes committed by the company they collect invoices for.

Courts don't reason that way in other cases. For example, if a company commits fraud by sending out fake invoices, nobody ever claims their collection agency is an accessory. If a company handles toxic substances irresponsibly, nobody ever claims their supplier is accessory to environmental crimes. It's not a supplier's responsibility to check the legality of their customer's busines, not even if they have reason to suspect it may be illegal.

On the main issue (accessory to copyright infringement), they may have been guilty, because they flaunted that their site was used for piracy. But if different judges had been ruling, they may have been found innocent, because the were just providing a service that could be used for both legal and illegal purposes. Much like stores can sell equipment for getting free cable or distilling alcohol, knowing full well that >90% of it is used illegally.

I think it could have gone either way, but the copyright lobby made sure the judges saw it the "right" way by systematically inviting them to conferences and paid jobs where they could be presented with the copyright lobby's point of view.

The judges in the higher court were also affiliated with copyright organisations. Pirate Bay went to trial in two instances, and in both of them, some of the judges were members of pro-copyright organisations.

There's no legal responsibility to police your site to remove illegal content. The DMCA is not applicable in Sweden, and the copyright holders never sent any Swedish take-down notices to Pirate Bay.

In fact, if they set up a system to monitor and take down torrents, it could make them more liable, since the prosecution could now claim they had knowledge of which torrents were legal and which weren't.

You don't need to prove that the judge was actually influenced (which is very hard to do). In Swedish practice, a judge should be replaced if there's reason to doubt his/her impartiality, Keeping the public's trust should also be factored into the decision.

Considering how weird the choice of judges looks from an outside perspective, it's strange they didn't just replace him before the trial started.

Yes, I was just trying to point out the similarities between the British Empire and USA to the GGP.

I think you have good points. I wasn't actually trying to glorify the British empire, I was just trying to show that it's not that different from the USA. Both justify their wars by claiming they're spreading their superior social order to the rest of the world, and that it's actually a selfless sacrifice on their part. The British are as justified in making that claim as the Americans. They called it "the white man's burden"; I don't know if there's an American term for it.