<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>corin_</author><text>First off, I&apos;d argue that creating an open space for people to share downloads (that aren&apos;t hosted on this open space) is not illegal.&lt;p&gt;Second, even if by law it is, legality isn&apos;t binary. Both murder and stealing a bottle of milk from a shop are illegal, you wouldn&apos;t say &quot;either you&apos;re for life inprisonment or you&apos;re against it, you can&apos;t pick and choose&quot; would you? Not only can we pick and chose, our legal systems &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; pick and chose, and they always have done.</text><parent_chain><item><author>citricsquid</author><text>Child pornography: illegal  
Copyright infringement: illegal&lt;p&gt;censoring child porn websites: right, censoring copyright infringement website: wrong.&lt;p&gt;Not sure I understand the difference? Either you&apos;re for censorship of websites, or you&apos;re against it, you can&apos;t pick and choose.</text></item><item><author>corin_</author><text>The issue is not with censorship, it&apos;s with what they are censoring. Very few people here would take issue with this court order if it was about a site that exclusively hosted child porn. Therefore yes, the context of &quot;is what TBP does illegal?&quot;&lt;p&gt;To extend your (frankly poor) metaphor, he wouldn&apos;t be a drug dealer if all he did was hold up a sign pointing you towards your nearest drug dealers and he never actually gave you any drugs.</text></item><item><author>citricsquid</author><text>&amp;#62; No, it doesn&apos;t. TPB doesn&apos;t provide any content at all. Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality.&lt;p&gt;And my drug dealer gave $50 to a pregnant woman so that she could get a taxi to the hospital.&lt;p&gt;If you want to argue why this ruling is wrong you should address the issues of censorship, arguing that The Pirate Bay &lt;i&gt;isn&apos;t&lt;/i&gt; a site built around copyright infringement (which it is and the founders openly admit this) just does a dis-service to the real problem here (censorship). TPB is a for-profit copyright infringement enabling enterprise, that&apos;s why it exists, arguing otherwise is not worth your energy (because ultimately, what does it matter if it enables copyright infringement or not? So do most websites that &lt;i&gt;don&apos;t&lt;/i&gt; intend on doing that) instead argue that any government should not be disabling access to a website.</text></item><item><author>MattBearman</author><text>The ruling is mostly full of shit:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
I&apos;d like to see evidence to back this up, innocent until proven guilty and all.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
No, it doesn&apos;t. TPB doesn&apos;t provide any content at all. Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
According to wikipedia, TPB earnings in 2006 were $102,035.05 US, and expenses in 2009 were $112,590.40 US (couldn&apos;t find data for the same year) but they can&apos;t be making a huge amount of profit on those margins.&lt;p&gt;But the thing that really gets me is our government giving itself power to censor the internet.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>High Court: The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs</title><url>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Dylan16807</author><text>Hosting illegal things: bad&lt;p&gt;Saying where to get illegal things: under dispute</text><parent_chain><item><author>citricsquid</author><text>Child pornography: illegal  
Copyright infringement: illegal&lt;p&gt;censoring child porn websites: right, censoring copyright infringement website: wrong.&lt;p&gt;Not sure I understand the difference? Either you&apos;re for censorship of websites, or you&apos;re against it, you can&apos;t pick and choose.</text></item><item><author>corin_</author><text>The issue is not with censorship, it&apos;s with what they are censoring. Very few people here would take issue with this court order if it was about a site that exclusively hosted child porn. Therefore yes, the context of &quot;is what TBP does illegal?&quot;&lt;p&gt;To extend your (frankly poor) metaphor, he wouldn&apos;t be a drug dealer if all he did was hold up a sign pointing you towards your nearest drug dealers and he never actually gave you any drugs.</text></item><item><author>citricsquid</author><text>&amp;#62; No, it doesn&apos;t. TPB doesn&apos;t provide any content at all. Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality.&lt;p&gt;And my drug dealer gave $50 to a pregnant woman so that she could get a taxi to the hospital.&lt;p&gt;If you want to argue why this ruling is wrong you should address the issues of censorship, arguing that The Pirate Bay &lt;i&gt;isn&apos;t&lt;/i&gt; a site built around copyright infringement (which it is and the founders openly admit this) just does a dis-service to the real problem here (censorship). TPB is a for-profit copyright infringement enabling enterprise, that&apos;s why it exists, arguing otherwise is not worth your energy (because ultimately, what does it matter if it enables copyright infringement or not? So do most websites that &lt;i&gt;don&apos;t&lt;/i&gt; intend on doing that) instead argue that any government should not be disabling access to a website.</text></item><item><author>MattBearman</author><text>The ruling is mostly full of shit:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
I&apos;d like to see evidence to back this up, innocent until proven guilty and all.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
No, it doesn&apos;t. TPB doesn&apos;t provide any content at all. Not only that, but it also provides links to non-copyright infringing material. Eg: Some of Nine Inch Nails recent releases have been legally made available over bittorrent in 24/96 high quality.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
According to wikipedia, TPB earnings in 2006 were $102,035.05 US, and expenses in 2009 were $112,590.40 US (couldn&apos;t find data for the same year) but they can&apos;t be making a huge amount of profit on those margins.&lt;p&gt;But the thing that really gets me is our government giving itself power to censor the internet.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>High Court: The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs</title><url>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176</url></story>