said by Matt :

You mean to tell me there is possible illegal activity surrounding with the purchase of a criminal outfit? I for one am shocked and outraged that an organization who would buy a website whose entire business model revolved around copyright infringement would even consider insider trading.

Oh, and no. Their business plan will utterly fail because the content producers won't pay them and they won't be able to pay the people bootlegging the material for them. If they have a board of directors and the board didn't approve of this, criminal charges should be filed and the culprit should be ousted.

said by Matt :

You mean to tell me there is possible illegal activity surrounding with the purchase of a criminal outfit? I for one am shocked and outraged that an organization who would buy a website whose entire business model revolved around copyright infringement would even consider insider trading.

Oh, and no. Their business plan will utterly fail because the content producers won't pay them and they won't be able to pay the people bootlegging the material for them. If they have a board of directors and the board didn't approve of this, criminal charges should be filed and the culprit should be ousted.

said by P Ness :

so i assume google is now illegal..and yahoo....and msft?
cause they all have links to the same thing piratebay did.

so what does PB really do different again?

said by P Ness :

so i assume google is now illegal..and yahoo....and msft?
cause they all have links to the same thing piratebay did.

so what does PB really do different again?

said by Matt :

"The Pirate Bay hosts the torrents on their server and makes fun of copyright holders when asked to remove said torrents."

said by james :

And the torrents contain no property of the complainants, therefore the appropriate thing to do is tell them to go f**k themselves. Oh but according to you it's illegal to make fun of someone who tells you to do something that they have no right to tell you to do.

DMCA takedown requests are to be used to remove your own intellectual property from someone elses server, since tpb hosted none of their property it means DMCA requests have no bearing. Oh wait, there's also the matter of them not being in the USA, and thus not being obligated to respond to DMCA requests etc... You are aware that there are other countries right? and that US law doesn't apply in them any more than their laws apply to you.

said by Goober :

Really, before taking on such a condescending tone, learn the facts.

said by james :

Yes, because an agreement written in 1886 would be so relevant to a torrenting website. Like I said, if they were hosting the actual files you would have a point, but as it stands the only reason they lost their case was because of the douchebag RIAA shill judge who should be removed from his position, along with the judge who was going to investigate him before she was exposed for being in the same organization.

said by Matt :

Of course, this was investigated and the Swedish government didn't feel there was any reason to allow a retrial. This is a very well known, basic fact of the trial.

said by Matt :

Repeat after me, "The Pirate Bay hosts the torrents on their server and makes fun of copyright holders when asked to remove said torrents." Google does not host the torrent files and responds in the appropriate manner to DMCA take down requests.

said by KrK :

Repeat after me, "The Pirate bay does NOT host the torrents on their servers and they did make fun of ILLEGAL THREATS by foreign blowhards. Meanwhile companies like Google et al MUST comply with laws that DO apply to them like the DMCA because they OPERATE WITHIN THE USA."