[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Not according to US law. Yes, I know they don't fall under US law, but that's the only example I have. There is not such thing as an absolute number in the law which says "if a tool allows X (some absolute number) illegal uses, then it is illegal".

Neat assertion. Do back it up fully, if you please.And please prove that you've proven exhaustively that US law under no circumstance judges something as bad based certain tragic cases rather than easily-abused/manufactured statistics. Because, as you might have noticed, they do believe the faulty statistics that the MAFIAA fabricates. What is it that makes you conflate statistics with truth and the supposition of completeness/exhaustiveness? In other words, why do you assume statistics are unbiased and unbiasable? Even when a methodology is sound, it can still ignore other data that should have been incorporated, but was forgotten. The point here is to apply your own insight and try to figure out if you think something rings true. Yes, that is a horribly subjective standard, but in the end it's the only one we have.

RS does nothing of the kind.

You realise "kind" is a relative concept, right, even though you use it in an absolute fashion? And that, by using it, you've just dug yourself into a lovely hole that allows for hundreds of thousands of bad analogies to be drawn? But by all means, defend the position that RS doesn't thrive on hosting illegally uploaded content. To my mind, they're one of the worst websites of the lot, though, specifically because they want to make money off it; but I guess if you can live with yourself for defending them, all the more power to you for your self-rationalization skillz.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

In order to show that, you need real data. Just making stuff up like "everybody KNOWS it's all illegal content" is meaningless.

I do? You must not know how the US government is run. Ever noticed how the "think of the children" argument can shut down any reasoned discussion? Anyway, I bore of this. I have nothing against filesharing, but I do have something against RS. If you really feel you gain something from trying to convince me of the fact that because I can't know the total number of files, I'm not allowed to say anything at all, all you are doing is convince me of the fact that you see no shades of grey anymore, and are utterly stuck in an ideological position. (namely, of trying to say that because the Content Industry abuses and outright makes up statistics, nobody is allowed to use them in any context, without being able to present figures that have been replicated 200x by independent researchers. That's just silly. Sure, you can disapprove of a methodology, but, considering I'm not the music industry, I do feel I deserve a benefit of the doubt at least slightly more than that industry and its pet lawyers.)

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The law only talks about the significance of the legal vs illegal use. Those are relative numbers.

[citation needed]. Furthermore, I don't give a rat's ass about what US law says. US law invented the DMCA, a need for biometric passports, Free Speech Zones while simultaneously claiming that everyone should have an inalienable right to FOS, And The List Goes On.
It's so riddled with nonsense, partiality and special interest that it's a joke. You get a DMCA because of the power of special interests, the entire bloody world is forced to implement biometric passports and to submit to being humiliated by the TSA because of a single terrorist attack, You have "sexual misconduct" laws that are formulated broadly enough so that everyone who is disliked by a cop can be put on a "sex offender list" for life for being spotted peeing outdoors, etc. Also, US Law allows these things to happen without anyone so much as batting an eye.

My personal conclusion (which, obviously, is not based on what percentage of laws is bad, but solely on the tragic cases I hear about in the 'media'): US law is incoherent and useless as a measure to decide reasonableness with. Furthermore, there is often a lag period between new forms of behavior, and new rules appearing to regulate them. As such, it's small wonder that RS might not be doing anything wrong legally, yet. Looking at intent, however, I can safely say I disapprove of their business practice even while I wholeheartedly support the right to distribute files between end users. And yes, I can happily say that without "knowing" the RS owners at all, without feeling the least presumptive.