The point is: Google provides the possibility to find ALL of the so-called underground p2p network websites, trackers and all sorts of information regarding doing something illegal. Hell, you can type "I want to do something illegal" in Google and it will surely find a way to lend you such information (although I strongly advise you DON'T do that!!!) However, the smaller guys like isohunt, mininova, piratebay, demonoid, rlslog, etc. will not lend such information (unless it is a movie title, the name of song or application title…and I find that very unlikely!) Google (to name one) is really a larger fish than given credit because it is like the portal to every bit of nonsense and good sense a person wishes…not only is Google doing the same thing the accused website is doing–it is doing more (in both the so-called good and bad directions of Internet usage!)

Really how could anyone find all the lovely places to download movies, music and software without the helping hand of Google. Even if a developer eliminates the communication with the infamous GoogleBot it does not mean that a person will not speak about a place to download music in a forum, social network or blog that IS in comm. with GoogleBot for SEO purposes…these sites get found regardless!!! How hard would it be for Google to filter out torrents and everything associated with them…but why on earth would they want to do that? ISOHUNT WILL NOT GO DOWN ALONE…meaning they will WIN!!!

What annoys me is how authorities come down brutally hard on pirates, and yet child pornography and the like continues to grow on mainstream sites and is accessible from mainstream ISPs. It's time they started taking more responsibility for more serious crimes.

you really have no clue what you are talking about, so just STFU before you sound even more dumb. The back pocket is a perfectly good analogy, you are just to simple minded to understand it.

Holy $hit, you guys have the WORST analogies here. Stealing from somebody's back pocket it committing a crime DIRECTLY. This is NOT a direct crime, if it was, they would be hosting the content.

Anyway, there is no argument here since everyone continues to fail miserable at accurately replicating this scenario into an example.

And we all know everyone on this site are even more guilty than the ones here in court. So STFU you hypocrites and go register your copy of windows or something.

Its more like being a scumbag and stealing from someones back pocket, then when you get caught you say its their fault because there pocket is open at the top.

"The way I see it its the same as a lemonade stand sitting on the street corner its 150 degrees outside the lemonade stand has a big sign saying free. Do you take the free lemonade or do you suffer from heat stroke?"

No it's more like someone asks you where he can find a lemonade stand, you tell him, then he goes to the lemonade stand and take a glass of lemonade without paying(steals a glass if you will). Does that make you an accomplice to the crime?

I basically agree with what #43 hyp0xia

as far as pricing goes saying you would pay a small amount.. if they were going to do the same for all the things in the universe that would be fine but they won't so your argument is mute as well as selfish and very ill informed..

@43 both parties are infringing copywrite ..if they were blissfully unaware of the content they are advertising everywhere on the site (from which they make a tidy living by the way) they might have a small case.

its a little akin to someone in a shopping mall with keys to all the shops saying come get your free food/shoes/underpants/etc ..wonder how long he would last..

Here it is. Plain and simple.. This is why you fail at life.

The driver of your car is (what would be) the end user (the one doing the downloading) in this lawsuit. The end user in this lawsuit is NOT on trail. The "car" (owner/ioshunt) is. In your dumb little analogy, the driver would go to trail, not the car. Do you get it? The car wouldnt even be considered as the motivator. So quit now and stop saying that isohunt is the car, because isohunt isn't guilty, the goddamn user who completes the download (crime) and uses the software is.

Now f*ck off with your meaningless nonsense.

Not really. this is just like if you slashed someone throat with a knife then tried suing the knife manufacturer claiming the knife slashed the throat, not you. This man broke the law, now it's time to pay the price.

Fair enough if you post a link to a site which tells you where to get hand grenades for free and this person actually personally gives them out then tells you how to use them to kill people, sure that would be illegal. although the link itself would not be illegal the site hosting the information probably would be.

People use these sites to find things be it illegal or not, they just provide a service. By a lot of people arguments for why it should be illegal then sites such as Google Maps, and the yellow pages should also be illegal because it might be used for illegal purposes. (Making bombs, and find location to place these).

It's not just search engines, what about email, forums, file hosting sites. They can all be used as a place to put links to illegal filez or meta data. Then who decided which meta data is good and bad? it's impossible you would have to ban everything good or bad.

At the moment it seems to be one rule for one set of people and different rules for others which obviously isn't right and should be taken to the courts for them to decide.

And, these Movie and Music organizations need to stop intruding on privacy rights and fix what's really wrong in their industries.