[aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality

[Karol Blazewicz]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Emil Lundberg <lundberg.emil at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This doesn't matter though. The AUR does not host any software that
>> may or may not be used for copyright infringement. The AUR is simply a
>> collection of build scripts.
>
> Keep in mind that this exact argument was used by The Pirate Bay in
> Swedish court, and they were struck down for "facilitation of
> copyright infringement" if I recall correctly. I don't doubt that the
> proportion of illegal activity is substantially greater for The Pirate
> Bay than for the AUR, but what's the real difference except that they
> also made money from ads?
>
> I'm not saying it's wrong to allow the package in question, I just
> wanted to point this out. And even if this would tick someone off I
> doubt anyone would bother taking Arch to court for something like this
> anytime soon.
>
> /Emil

We had a discussion about "warez in the AUR" a few times:
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016268.html
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016282.html
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-January/017268.html

If you can legally buy a game (e.g. on gog.com), should the AUR
package be allowed to download the source (game data, not the source
code) from abandonia.com and friends?