It really just detracts from the better arguments made. Do you want to shorten copyright and reform patents, or do you want to legalize very commercial file sharing?
But as long as the main activity is legal, then of course it's also legal to commercially aid somebody in doing so. Entire industries are built on that fundamental logic.
Cheers, Rick
Somebody making money off of aiding a legal noncommercial sharing doesn't make the original sharing commercial and illegal. Again, compare dating.
And if you can make money off of people wanting to share culture and knowledge, all the better for you.
Everyone benefits from patent reform, copyright reform, the cost of drugs being reduced, DRM being abolished etc. Why derail those arguments with "and legalize piracy!" when TPB etc's perhaps illicit business models are of no lasting consequence to anyone but the few whose pockets they line?
Also, it's pretty easy to judge when file-sharing is commercial - whenever it is done by a commercial entity, e.g. a for-profit radio station that would otherwise have to pay public-performance fees.
The analogy with the postal service made earlier was actually quite apt.
Cheers, Rick
The line between "aiding file sharing" and "file sharing is their business model" is also very, very questionable. We all saw what happened to Mininova when they stopped "aiding".
TPB could easily run without ads. In my mind adding ads to something should generally not affect legality.
A guy who prints DVDs with movies on them and sells them on the street is a commercial pirate. A guy that takes DVDs someone else made and brings them to people is a courier. It's not a very complicated distinction.
If it is legal for you to download a file and burn it, it should be legal for you to hire someone else to do that for you.
On one hand, it might be legal, deciding the agency is in the person submitting the link and the other person is only automatically shoving some bits around.
On the other hand, you might decide that that's not a service that can legitimately be paid for. Some things can't be outsourced. I think right now that it's legal to 3d print a rifle but it's not legal to have someone else print it for you (but I'm having trouble finding references).
Either way, the intent of the law matters, and it's possible to outlaw commercial enterprises based around piracy but not individuals' actions. One method might be to limit the number of 'uploads' to a number like 10.
The commercial nature of the site affects whether it falls under non-commercial file sharing the OP would like to see legalized of course, in which case it changes the argument from "legalize non-commercial file sharing" to "legalize commercial piracy".
You can't simply abolish a system like copyright because it protects the people who create original work. Otherwise people will sell their work. IE. If TPB created a premium offering, wouldn't everybody pay for that instead of offerings which actually paid the content creators?
Why don't we work on building a system which allows a consumer to reliably identify and pay the creator of a work? This way content can still be freely distributed, but the consumer can easily support/finance the creator if they want.
Now, we can argue that the temporary monopoly is too long now, but to suggest that we go back to square one is silly. Why throw away hundreds of years of progress on this issue?
I think patronage and reorganization of artistic groups is coming inherently. The only question is will we decide to stick them, and ourselves, with laws made for completely different technology.
Copyright in the US started at what, 14, 21 years? I forget offhand. Then you had to write a book, sell all rights to a publisher, deliver it to the publisher by horse then train then horse, have them print it, deliver it to sales people by train then wagon then horse, who delivered them to purchasers by train or wagon or horse. And throw some boats in there.
That was plenty enough copyright, our founders said. Other nations did not heavily disagree in copyright length. After that time, the work should go to the public good.
Remember, the public good is the only reason for copyright; to entice people to create for the public domain.
Today? You finish a work, upload it, and it's available for purchase from you, the creator. Nothing created in your lifetime will lapse into the public domain naturally.
This is not progress. This is perversion.