A Legal Question

[Underground_Network]

Legal question:

An online service is available providing a service that is legal, but it's only legal because it has one restriction... But that one restriction has a loophole. So, since the service is legal, if someone were to use the service but also use the loophole that rids it of the restriction (the restriction that technically makes the service legal), is the service still technically legal or does it become illegal?

By logical reasoning one would assume that using the loophole would be ILLEGAL, but because the service is classified as LEGAL despite having the loophole, wouldn't using the loophole, because it's part of the LEGAL service still be legal?

[Brighter.Tomorrow]

It's considered Illegal but the maker of the service will be held responsible for it.
(Just asked my Uncle, he's a lawyer.)

[Kahn]

Honestly this was all a bunch of nonsense to me. If it is legal and this is legal, what would this be considered illegal, or is it legal since this is legal and that is legal? That is what I heard.

[Underground_Network]

If I mentioned what I'm actually referencing people would jump to the immediate conclusion that it's illegal. That's why I can't mention the actual online service, it would bias people's decisions on whether or not it was legal (i.e. people would be debating whether the service which is confirmed to be legal, is truthfully legal or not, which is not my intention).

[Evermore]

Just tell us. It will be easier to understand and most likely we won't have heard of it unless i's myspace or something popular.

[quartermaster]

It is illegal, because it is not a lopphole in the law, it is a loophole in a service that claims to be legal. The law has not changed because of this said loophole, it quite simply makes the site or service with the loophole, breaching the law itself.

[INFERNO]

It is illegal because the maker of the service provides you with the service and terms of service or contract stating that it is legal. The loophole is not the fault of the law or you but of the maker of the service and it negates any legality they claim they would have. For this reason, the illegality is their fault because as a consumer, you adhere to their contract or terms of service under the guaruntee that it is legal.

Think of it like this: I'm your employer and as a salesman, you sell frying pans. I've told you and guarunteed you, as well as wrote up legal contracts and ads saying these pans are durable for every type of food. You sell it to someone who tries to cook a turtle in it and the pan breaks. I can say a turtle isn't food but to the person, it is food so there's a loophole because I didn't consider exotic foods. However, that wouldn't be known by you or the customer. So, the customer goes to you because you sold it to them and complains, however, you're simply working under the notion I gave you, so I (the company) gets sued. So my legal contract for this turned out to be false but the loophole is not your fault or the customer's fault, it's my (the company's) fault.

[Katrina]

I had a similar confrontation some 4 years ago, and I have not suffered anything for that. So I think it is legal.

[CuriousDestruction]

lol, i like this question. well, if the service is legal because it has a restriction in place yet that restriction has a loophole, that makes the service still legal. the definition of a loophole is a hole in the restriction that makes something legal. for instance, when congress passed the law saying blacks could vote, whites found ways to stop them from voting legally anyway. they put up poll taxes and literacy tests. those weren't illegal at the time. the short answer to that complicated question is, if the restriction is there because the law demands it, and there is a loophole in the restriction, there is a problem with the law.

[DoveGreySands]

It's considered Illegal but the maker of the service will be held responsible for it.
(Just asked my Uncle, he's a lawyer.)

Listen to the Lawyer Adam!

(oh, and let me guess; you're talking about torrents right?)

[CaptainObvious]

Yeah, this is obviously about online file sharing services of one kind or another.

The answer is that illegal use of a legal service through a loophole is most certainly still illegal. Your failure to get there comes here:

By logical reasoning one would assume that using the loophole would be ILLEGAL, but because the service is classified as LEGAL despite having the loophole, wouldn't using the loophole, because it's part of the LEGAL service still be legal?

That's not logical. It's sort of like saying "using a gun for hunting is legal, shooting random people on the streets is not, but since you can physically shoot people on the streets(the "loophole") with a gun that you otherwise own and use for hunting legally, shooting people on the streets must be legal."

Doesn't work that way. Services are in and of themselves not legal or illegal, only uses of those services are. Since almost all such services are content neutral, their creators are not explicitly encouraging illicit use and therefore are not acting illegally; the users who would use such services illegally obviously are.