Well, then either copyright law has to change, or these sites need to make it their priority to figure out how to make it feasible to screen user-contributed content.

Pirate-party.us has a right to political speech. It doesn't have a right to endorse or teach people how to break the law. If they want to maintain their right to political speech, they need to pare out the other kind.

And, Talya -- I disagree. Copyright makes it illegal to distribute a copyrighted work without the express consent of the copyright holder. If I am hosting material on the internet, and allowing it to be accessed, I am distributing that work. We're not talking about a landlord, here -- the host is PROVIDING THE SERVICE OF DISTRIBUTION himself. We're not talking about an auto manufacturer building getaway vehicles, we're talking about the limo driver idling outside the bank robbery.

So, where's the line between conspiracy and free speech, then?

Conspiracy requires an actual agreement between the parties to commit the crime. Encouraging others to commit a crime, even giving advice on how it could be done, is quite different than actually teaming up to do it.

Blocking DNS is equivalent to refusing to publish a number in the phone book.

No speech is infringed upon.

What percentage of Internet-using people do you think actually know you can reach a site by typing in the IP address?

But can you honestly suggest that pirate-party.us, when it writes an article on bittorrent, *isn't* in agreement with the reader when the reader then goes on to download copyrighted ****?

But doesn't intent factor into it RD?

If I post a website that gives a realistic how to guide on how to take down Marine 1 using easily obtained items and easily employed methods, would a reasonable person say that my intent was to have someone attempt to take down Marine 1? Or would a reasonable person say I was just attempting to host a discussion about what would be required to take down such a vehicle?

I think information should be free, but peoples intellectual property should not. Pirating things isn't justifiable, just rationalized.

That's not such a great example because you're talking about taking down a specific helicopter and so a much stronger case can be made that you're advocating a specific course of action.

On the other hand, if you hosted a website on how one goes about shooting down helicopters in general, or how antiaircraft systems in general ought to be employed, or a study on improvised antiaircraft systems, that would be much closer to RDs example.