isoHunt and MPAA Debate Legality of BitTorrent Sites
Written by Ernesto on May 04, 2008The legality of BitTorrent sites has always been highly debated. As of today, no court has ever ruled that a website offering .torrent links is legal or not. This might change soon, as isoHunt and the MPAA once again clash in court.
The isoHunt vs. MPAA case has been dragging on for more than two years now. It basically comes down to the question whether a BitTorrent site is facilitating copyright infringement by indexing .torrent files, that in some cases point to copyrighted material. An important question, and the answer is likely to set a precedent for future cases against similar sites.
In April, the appointed judge asked both parties to clarify how BitTorrent works, and what isoHunt’s contribution is to the copying of (copyrighted) material. Little over a month ago the MPAA explained (in private) to judge Wilson why they think BitTorrent sites are infringing copyright, and today isoHunt has filed a response.
“The MPAA has taken a narrow point of view that copyright infringement is stealing, that isoHunt serves no other purpose than promoting and facilitating infringement of Hollywood films,” isoHunt owner Gary Fung writes. He and his lawyers refuse to be compared to “the bogeyman selling pirated DVDs on the street”, and explain why.
One of isoHunt’s arguments is that the site is in fact very similar to search engines like Google. They write: “The essential functions performed at a torrent site are also performed at a comprehensive search site like Google or Yahoo!. To visualize a visit to isoHunt, start off with a visit to Google , only a few things are changed, mostly superficial, and the workings are very similar.”
This is not a new argument, two years ago TorrentSpy used a similar analogy, and last year OiNK administrator Alan Ellis told The Telegraph: “If Google directed someone to a site where they can illegally download music, they are doing the same as what I have been accused of. I am not making any Oink users break the law.”
Indeed, torrent sites do not host or directly link to copyrighted content. In the filing isoHunt goes on to explain how BitTorrent works and what the role of the site is in the downloading process. They explain that all the site does is collect and index metafiles (torrents), and that they are not directly involved in the downloading process.
The MPAA does not agree, and has argued that sites such as isoHunt offer a “centralized index” of copyrighted material. isoHunt, however, does not agree with this view, and tell judge Wilson: “It is a semantic game to argue that Defendants provide a “centralized index.” The words “centralized” and “central” are contrary to the principles that shape and define BitTorrent technology.”
BitTorrent is indeed decentralized rather than centralized, and the claim that BitTorrent sites are an “index of copyrighted material” is not correct either, since .torrent files itself are not copyrighted. Some files may link to copyrighted material (hosted on computers all over the world), but there are thousands of .torrent files that link to material that is uploaded with the permission of the copyright holder.
isoHunt as a service does not infringe or facilitate copyright infringement, all they do is host .torrent files. These files may or may not point to copyrighted material, but this seems to be irrelevant. The site is not alone, hundreds of sites index .torrent files, and even Google has a .torrent search command. BitTorrent or .torrent links have nothing to do with copyright infringement, nor do sites like isoHunt.
“More innocent than Google, Defendants have no part in the design or operational control of the BitTorrent Network and have no more than a membership role,” isoHunt’s lawyers write. Perhaps the MPAA should sue Google next?
To be continued…
Previously: Nine Inch Nails Give Away New Single on Facebook
Next: File-Sharer Convicted in Sweden’s Biggest P2P Case
79 Responses
First!
“due” google. otherwise good article.
“Perhaps the MPAA should due Google next?”
You mean Sue?
I completely agree w/ isoHunts argument, they are simply pointing ppl in the right direction using torrents and a client that can understand the metafile. Google uses a web-browser as their “client”..
[quote comment="372688"]First!
“due” google. otherwise good article.[/quote]
Thanks ;)
I think what it comes down to is if the site is willingly providing copyright infringing content or not.
You could argue that mininova is so big and has a fair amount of media that has no copyright that they could get away with simply saying “we host the torrent files but we do not know what they are and if asked will remove any if it infringes on your copyright”
but then if you look at some sites which go out of the way to say “get the latest movies here etc etc” then they will have a hard time as they are clearly knowingly aiming to infringe on someone’s copyright.
I’m all for downloading stuff as personally I prefer to get it for free than to pay for it but realistically you are breaking the law, whether it’s morally wrong or not under the current law it’s illegal, and when sites that knowingly set themselves up as a site to download warez I don’t really think they have a leg to stand on in court.
“Perhaps the MPAA should sue Google next?”
Actually, my fear is, that at some point, they WILL. Well, if not sue them, but they could “come up with an agreement” or something – just think of the censorship agreements with China – Google are not always the “friendly hackers” we think them to be.
[quote comment="372752"]“Perhaps the MPAA should sue Google next?”
Actually, my fear is, that at some point, they WILL. Well, if not sue them, but they could “come up with an agreement” or something – just think of the censorship agreements with China – Google are not always the “friendly hackers” we think them to be.[/quote]
Actually, I’d be keen on the MPAA going after Google. This isn’t some individual or small group; they have buckets of cash to take a proper fight to them. Of course, yea, if they cave thats a whole different story…
It’s a stretch to compare Google to torrent sites. Sure, all they do is index, but most of the people who are using those trackers are distributing copyrighted materials. This is different from Google, where most traffic involves people looking for porn. If the majority of Google traffic involved people doing something illegal, they would probably be in trouble as well.
The only hope for bittorrent trackers is to move their servers to countries that do not regard their activities as illegal and then pray that those countries don’t change their minds.
Google will honour a DMCA takedown request where the party can show it is their copyright being infringed, Isohunt does the same. The MPAA may or may not make such requests to Google, who of course would comply, it seems however they make no such requests to Isohunt and instead just chose all out legal action, which hopefully backfire ,Isohunt would win and the future of all bittorrent site would be secured under the same precident. If however Isohunt lose this case, it will only be a matter of time before the MPAA and others use the same legal argument against the other major bittorrent sites.
why with google when yahoo and msncan be used as torrent search feature. in that case mpaa should sue yahoo and microsoft
@7
isohunt doesnt have a tracker. they are only indexing torrents that point to other peoples trackers!
MPAA argument will fail at some point because the law as it stands cannot be upheld.
Current case law holds that if you benefit from copyright infringement then you are guilty in civil law of copyright infringement.
Isohunt’s revenue comes from advertising and the more users it has the more money it makes. Mainly, users are hunting for copyright content. So although isohunt indexes a lot of non copyright content because of it’s business model it benefits from copyright infringement.
A judge could insist that they use a white list of content. They would then have to close as their business model depends on advertising. Users want content.
It is only DCMA that prevents this argument being applied to ISPs and cable and DSL.
However even those not covered by DCMA are not proscecuted as there are so many of them.
The law does not work.
And some such as decentralised friend to friend network like Dargens http//:www.Dargens.com are outside this law.
Their business model depends on communication between members not listing copyright content.
As it is a private network where member connect to friends but share with everyone no transactions are public.
So if there is any breach of civil law it happens in private like friends lending each other CDs.
Also, as it is private it is different in nature to the public distribution of copyrighted content.
In fact it is closer to word of mouth advertising.
I do hope isohunt win their case but even if they don’t it’s good to know there are fast friendly alternatives ready to take the strain in the US and UK.
[quote comment="372851"]Google will honour a DMCA takedown request where the party can show it is their copyright being infringed, Isohunt does the same. The MPAA may or may not make such requests to Google, who of course would comply, it seems however they make no such requests to Isohunt and instead just chose all out legal action, which hopefully backfire ,Isohunt would win and the future of all bittorrent site would be secured under the same precident. If however Isohunt lose this case, it will only be a matter of time before the MPAA and others use the same legal argument against the other major bittorrent sites.[/quote]
You cannot sue someone who produces kitchenknifes because most of them is used for violence.
Ooops sorry wrong quote. It was the post over the one i quoted.
Sorry.
Actually, sueing google is not a bad idea.. would totally free up the whole P2P thing… if given a chance I would sue google… yes you read right! And I aint a anti p2p scum either..!
Heres my logic, i make some content and own the copyright to it, X number of torrent sites take the content and i find it via google… i sue google via the same arguements that the mpaa are making, google is the 100 ton gorilla compared to me and my legal budget so nobody will be all that surprised that i drop the suit… google wins and sets precedent! All future sites can quote my case and how google was let off :)
this would also work if some people sued some torrent site and then backs off… someone needs to set a good precedent for us P2P’ers.
Problem is getting the right person / organization to do so… would love to do it, but dont have the cash… anybody out there??
http://www.ezee.se/
[quote]If however Isohunt lose this case, it will only be a matter of time before the MPAA and others use the same legal argument against the other major bittorrent sites.[/quote]
Also remember, on the other hand isohunt and trackers win… you are going to see an explosion of indexers and trackers… future generations would look back and laugh at the handfull that we have now.
Heck, a minimum of 10% of all who read this will start their own, including me!
http://www.ezee.se/
@7
OK. But, those indexes themselves are used primarily to distribute copyrighted material.
@10
Most kitchen knives (and guns–another common analogy) are used legally. The majority of bittorrent traffic is used to distribute copyrighted material. The majority of people using bittorrent trackers are engaging in an activity that is considered illegal in most developed countries. This is not the case with Google.
I hope isoHunt, OiNK and TPB have a better arguments than “we’re just like Google!” It’s hard to imagine even a Swedish judge being impressed by this analogy, let alone a British magistrate or a U.S. jury.
In most places its legal to buy a bong. The head shop doesnt get taken to court of some dude gets arrested using it to smoke pot does it? Just because ’some’ people use bittorrent for illegal file sharing does not mean that bittorrent sites have or should any responsability over what they users do with it. The ‘We’re just like Google’ statement is a perfectly legitimate argument in so far as the same .torrent files can just as easily be found via Google and that would be true wether Isohunt got shut down or not. This is just as much about proving that bittorrent sites enable infringement as it is the MPAA trying to prove that .torrent files themselves enable infringement. If that happens, not only are torrent sites at risk, but pressure can then be levied against ISP’s to block the download of .torrent files as well as the bittorrent protocol.
[quote comment="372832"]It’s a stretch to compare Google to torrent sites. Sure, all they do is index, but most of the people who are using those trackers are distributing copyrighted materials. This is different from Google, where most traffic involves people looking for porn. If the majority of Google traffic involved people doing something illegal, they would probably be in trouble as well.[/quote]
Think about that a bit. Technically, it is illegal for minors to have access to pornographic material. Now, if all 15-and-under males in the world with easy and frequent access to Google without anyone watching over their shoulder were to tell the truth, you’d find that a very large number of them are “illegally” “downloading” pornographic material. Then again, laws on decency and such in this country are at least as disgustingly backwards as the state of our Telecom industry, broadband internet accessibility, availability, and speed/price ratios, and our government full of religious fanatics.
One bit to add to that :) Get out while you can, before the rest of the world grows a brain and gets rid of this piss-poor excuse for a country :)
Heres my logic, i make some content and own the copyright to it, X number of torrent sites take the content and i find it via google… i sue google via the same arguements that the mpaa are making, google is the 100 ton gorilla compared to me and my legal budget so nobody will be all that surprised that i drop the suit… google wins and sets precedent! All future sites can quote my case and how google was let off :)
sorry jag, good idea but that’s not how legal precedent works. there has to be “a final judgment on the merits,” you’d have to see the case through and lose it in a really broad way for torrent sites to use the precedent.
@17
Troll, I have to admit–you have a good point with your bong analogy. Most bongs are indeed used for illegal purposes, although they can be sold legally. Maybe TPB and the rest will begin employing the Bong Defense :)
An important difference though, is that bittorrent trackers are generally being pursued by civil, rather than criminal proceedings so the standards are not quite the same.
In addition, if some guy wants to smoke weed via a bong, there are no aggrieved parties. Bong smokers are not a hot topic right now. Unfortunately for bittorrent, there dozens of companies and organizations in multiple industries that consider copyright infringement to be a mortal threat to their existence, so it is an issue.
@18
While I’m sure that many teenagers are searching for porn by using Google, that is still not the majority of Google usage. It would not be difficult for Google to convince a judge or jury that their services are mostly used in a legal manner and that illegal usage is a minority of traffic. Bittorrent trackers would have some difficulty making the same argument.
i would like to see the MPAA take on google…
this gives me an idea….
hey anyone know the email address of the MPAA? i think they might finally meet their match with ggoogle
but know i only have to find out how to initiate this fight….
but yeah i would PAY to see a fight between google and the MPAA
TorrentSpy used a similar analogy and lost. So why do the same?
It is better to show how your in the right. And leave it at that. imo
I never like the analogy so and so does it.
please replace “know” with now…and excuse my poor grammar and unwillingness to look over posts before posting
[quote]“Perhaps the MPAA should sue Google next?”[/quote]
I believe there is a law that makes it illegal to sue a website for searching.
[quote comment="373228"]TorrentSpy used a similar analogy and lost. So why do the same?
It is better to show how your in the right. And leave it at that. imo
I never like the analogy so and so does it.[/quote]
Too bad TorrentSpy lost the case due to destruction of evidence and a default judgement as a result. It’s not their analogy that made them lose their case.
The theory has always been that they are “making available” copyrighted works, which is not illegal in itself, and nor do they even make available. They only link to or host torrent info, which is not copyrighted.
Another important point I believe was made quite some time ago by a judge, I don’t remember who or when;
that after copyrighted work has legally been sold and distributed to the mainstream public, copyright infringement becomes unenforcable, or something to that effect, and makes good sense.
The cartels of course want full control, as that’s what they’re about. This sue all approach makes them look so stupid, and the Internet is more powerful than them and is not going away, nor is file sharing which is an integral part of it.
It will come to the point when they realize they are in a losing battle, and then like the turncoats they are, they will figure the “if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em” approach is due.
Maybe it’s time they sacked the RIAA and sued them for all they’ve got
Wired.com is soooo 10 years ago!
@ 18 gordon:hey man are you talkin about Ireland or do our countries sound very shit similar and full of dumb cunts?
[quote comment="373228"]TorrentSpy used a similar analogy and lost. So why do the same?
It is better to show how your in the right. And leave it at that. imo
I never like the analogy so and so does it.[/quote]
True, that is a weak excuse, if that’s the best they could think of. If we are pulled over for speeding and asked why, and said “everybody does it”, how would that hold up? Or if a thief’s excuse was that a lot of people do it, and maybe also get away with it.
I agree it only conveys guilt. Better to explain personal views, assuming you have them.
there’s one huge different between BT site and google , that is MONEY and google has a lot of it. this also the reason why youtube still standing despite hosting a lot illegal stuff .
sad to say but i think isoHunt effort will be waste .
@ 32
Again, the Google comparisons don’t work. Youtube WAS sued a couple of years ago (immediately after Google bought them), but Google wisely did not attempt to take the “we’re just a search engine” defense and actually tried to work with the labels and studios to come up with some kind of working arrangement.
Google agreed to actively monitor for and remove infringing YouTube content (as opposed to only removing them when they receive a complaint).
In addition, YouTube is quietly paying license fees to many copyright holders. If you see a video on YouTube from a major artist and it hasn’t been taken down after a while, it’s probably because YouTube and the record company have a licensing agreement worked out. Otherwise, YouTube’s system would take it down within hours.
It’s not much, but it’s far more than any bittorrent indexer site has bothered with.
Sorry, that was directed at @33, not @32
Reguardless if you like tha analogy or not, it is what it is. You cant compare a torrent site to a toaster, you need to use like for like, and the closest thing to a torrent site, is Google or Yahoo. The fact that people use a torrent search engine for questionable legal use is irrelevant and for all intents and purposes, no different than using a search engine like Google for tips on stalking that neighbor you like , growing weed, or how to whack someone without getting caught. If a torrent search engine is guilty of infringement then Goolge is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, rape, drug trafficing and any number of other crimes they ‘enable’ people to commit.
@ 36
The argument that “Google does it too” does not necessarily save isohunt. No court has given Google a free pass to facilitate copyright infringement. Bittorrent search engines need to develop a defense that is based on the copyright law of their countries, established case law and nothing else.
It’s POSSIBLE that a sympathetic court could buy into the “covered by DMCA safe harbor” bit, but this argument could be undermined by the fact that most people are using bittorrent search engines illegally. You may not feel that this point is relevant, but the wording of the DMCA is ambiguous enough to allow for interpretation on the part of a judge or jury–and they may not interpret it in the same the way that you do.
As I have already stated, Isohunt complies with the DMCA. It is the MPAA who chose legal action rather than do what everyone else does, and that request that their content is removed. Isohunt’s point seems to be that they as an entity have no control over what the bittorrent user chooses to do with their bittorrent client. It is the client that facilitates the copying and distibution of copyright protected material, not the bittorrent site. The bittorrent site does not in any way breach the copyrights of others. No data pases through their servers that belongs to others except with the express permission of the copyright holder, nor do the .torrent files themselves contain any copyright protected material. You cannot build a case based on copyright where there is no breach of copyright to deny or defend. No one has said that Google has free pass to facilitate infringement, never the less, it is used for that purpose. The Judge asked for a sumary explanation of what bittorrent is and the methods employed in its use, and as any idiot knows how Google works, it is the best way to explain a bittorrent search engine using concepts that are well know and easy to comprihend.
The argument that passively responding to content removal requests is sufficient to satisfy DMCA requirements has been challenged legally.
I don’t think this challenge was ever settled because Google (via YouTube) caved under pressure and agreed to set up active monitoring (when they were sued by various parties) and pay for licensing.
If anything, the Google analogy may backfire because Google themselves have demonstrated a willingness to develop a system to actively filter for copyrighted material.
[quote comment="372820"][quote comment="372752"]“Perhaps the MPAA should sue Google next?”
Actually, my fear is, that at some point, they WILL. Well, if not sue them, but they could “come up with an agreement” or something – just think of the censorship agreements with China – Google are not always the “friendly hackers” we think them to be.[/quote]
Actually, I’d be keen on the MPAA going after Google. This isn’t some individual or small group; they have buckets of cash to take a proper fight to them. Of course, yea, if they cave thats a whole different story…[/quote]
google would win
Slight difference, in the case of Youtube, they actualy hosted and distributed infringing content. The only relevence to that particular case would be if isohunt had servers seeding infringing torrents, which they do not.
@41 Good point.
If you put together two rabbits, a buck and a doe, you can bet your carrots that there will be more than two rabbits after a while. And who’s fault is it?
Did you not know that copyright is up to them? Would you ever ask this question? Would you not bet your carrots? Would you let them become extinct?
[quote comment="372870"]@7
isohunt doesnt have a tracker. they are only indexing torrents that point to other peoples trackers![/quote]
Actually they do, they have 2.
From isoHunts bitTorrent clarification response.
[quote]Defendants run trackers torrentbox and podtropolis.[/quote]
Still a tracker doesn’t do anything illegal, it connects me to you and then [b]we[/b] do illegal stuff.
help promote filesharing…
let people know at:
http://debatewise.com/debates/305-bittorrent-and-filesharing-which-side-are-you
[quote comment="372832"]It’s a stretch to compare Google to torrent sites. Sure, all they do is index, but most of the people who are using those trackers are distributing copyrighted materials.[/quote]
In terms of “facilitating copyright infringement”, Google is 110% identical to torrent sites. Literally, there is no difference.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22pirates+of+the+caribbean%22+torrent&spell=1
To call the comparison a stretch is downright fucking delusional, especially when you base it on something as mindnumbingly irrelevent as what you guess most people use Isohunt and what you guess most people use Google for.
[quote comment="373500"]
The argument that “Google does it too” does not necessarily save isohunt.[/quote]
By indexing torrents, Isohunt is no more responsible for facilitating copyright infringement than Google is for indexing Isohunt. That is not an argument, nor is it necessarily a defence – rather, it is a humble statement of fact.
They won’t sue Google because they know they would be hammered into the ground by Google’s very expensive legal teams, which would then set a bad precedent for the MPAA and most likely destroy any further cases they may wish to pursue.
It would be nice then.
@43
“Still a tracker doesn’t do anything illegal, it connects me to you and then we do illegal stuff.”
This is one thing that makes the analogy with Google invalid. A tracker *is* facilitating the sharing of the copyrighted material, while google is pointing to a file (torrent) that is pointing to the tracker that is connecting the peers doing the illegal sharing.
BT site: Lets you find torrents, and connects peers (i.e. facilitating illegal filesharing).
Google/any SE indexing torrents among other files: Lets you find torrents, but does not connect peers.
So to be honest, there is a difference between indexing a trillion files (among which some are torrents), and indexing only torrents AND acting as the middleman (being a tracker).
Never the less, running a tracker should not equal violating copyright, but perhaps facilitating the violation of copyright. And why should society spend huge resources on that rather harmless crime? Perhaps that is what people really should debate.
What has happened is that the justice system is investigating and prosecuting those crime whose alleged victims are the ones most successful in lobbying politicians claiming *their* crime/problem is the one most important for the society to fight — no matter if it takes orwellian measures and the filtering of the internet etc to stop those “crimes”.
@11 Please don’t point people to dodgy websites like Dargens.com. Seriously, though, you’re retarded if you use that site! Death of p2p apps happened a long time ago! Long live torrenting!! Just retards like you that keep them dragging along…
On their site: “”ANONYMOUS P2P file sahring”"
Please, never fking trust a site that can’t get simple spelling correct!!
It seems to me like a neverending dispute. I don’t know why the MPAA doesn’t sign contracts with all the ISP and allow their subscribers to pay a small fee to download all the movies they want. So instead of loosing billions of dollars every year because of piracy they win billions from this agreements. Imagine for a moment that 500.000.000 internet subscribers will pay, let’s say, just 2 extra dollars/month this means 1 billionn dollars and 12 billion dollars a year for Hollywood. And this is only from ISP subscribers. More than that they could add small advertisings as text during the movie. And gain other billions. For me their logic is not to be understood. This is a battle that will go on for ever. No one will ever win. Why doesn’t MPAA facilitates the creation of a big server from where they can distribute movies to those who are registered thru their ISP. And than the money wil very simple be distibuted to the movie companies according to the number of downloads.
This method could easily be applied also to music files, apps, games s.a. It seems right to me and i wouldn’t mind to pay a few extra dollars for downloading legal stuff.
Maybe i’m wrong but at least this is a solution as far as i’m concerned.
[quote comment="374186"]
This is one thing that makes the analogy with Google invalid. A tracker *is* facilitating the sharing of the copyrighted material, while google is pointing to a file (torrent) that is pointing to the tracker that is connecting the peers doing the illegal sharing.[/quote]
You’re right.
Trackers are guilty of facilitating copyright infringement because they act as pointers to computers sharing copyrighted data. Google, on the other hand, also acts as a pointer to computers sharing copyrighted data… But they do it by indexing Torrent sites. This makes Google innocent of facilitating copyright infringement, and in no way comparable to a tracker… Even though they both achieve the exact same ends, and even though they both achieve those ends by functioning as pointers to a means of obtaining copyrighted material.
…
Do you realize that going by your logic, if you had the names and numbers of thousands of cocaine dealers, and you gave them out freely to anybody looking for cocaine… You wouldn’t be guilty of facilitating cocaine use?
Perhaps you should rethink your train of thought, because you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have Isohunt guilty while Google is innocent, nor can you have Isohunt innocent and while Google becomes guilty.
[quote comment="374370"]I don’t know why the MPAA doesn’t sign contracts with all the ISP and allow their subscribers to pay a small fee to download all the movies they want.[/quote]
Because the MPAA is an organization composed of greedy, dinosauric misers who would rather die than give up on gouging consumers for all they possibly can.
[quote comment="374370"]So instead of loosing billions of dollars every year because of piracy[/quote]
Before that could happen, wouldn’t they have to start losing billions of dollars a year to piracy?
Because, sadly for them, lying about it doesn’t count.
[quote comment="373211"]
sorry jag, good idea but that’s not how legal precedent works. there has to be “a final judgment on the merits,” you’d have to see the case through and lose it in a really broad way for torrent sites to use the precedent.[/quote]
Well ok,
then get a lawyer who wont represent you to the full of his abilities or just does a bad job on purpose… lose the case.. and set precedent!
http://www.ezee.se/
Google is the worlds largest bittorent tracker ….
Agree…
http://scriptfreak.org/forums/
[quote comment="374370"]It seems to me like a neverending dispute. I don’t know why the MPAA doesn’t sign contracts with all the ISP and allow their subscribers to pay a small fee to download all the movies they want. So instead of loosing billions of dollars every year because of piracy they win billions from this agreements. Imagine for a moment that 500.000.000 internet subscribers will pay, let’s say, just 2 extra dollars/month this means 1 billionn dollars and 12 billion dollars a year for Hollywood. And this is only from ISP subscribers. More than that they could add small advertisings as text during the movie. And gain other billions. For me their logic is not to be understood. This is a battle that will go on for ever. No one will ever win.[/quote]
Except that it wouldn’t be $2 a month, it would more likely be $10 a month. Also, it wouldn’t stay at $10 a month for long. The MPAA would claim that people were downloading even more, so they need to raise the price to cover it. How much has your cable bill gone up in the last 5 years?
[quote comment="374370"]Why doesn’t MPAA facilitates the creation of a big server from where they can distribute movies to those who are registered thru their ISP. And than the money wil very simple be distibuted to the movie companies according to the number of downloads.[/quote]
Because they’re stupid and don’t want to adapt. IF they ever did anything like this, the files would be a DRM locked format that could only be watched on the computer they were downloaded on. Plus, not everything would be available, because copyright laws are such a mess that they wouldn’t have the proper rights to sell some movies online as downloads.
[quote comment="374370"]This method could easily be applied also to music files, apps, games s.a. It seems right to me and i wouldn’t mind to pay a few extra dollars for downloading legal stuff.
Maybe i’m wrong but at least this is a solution as far as i’m concerned.[/quote]
Great idea!
$10 – Movies
$5 – Music
$10 – Games
$10 – Apps
So that’s only an extra $35 a month. Then after 6-12 months, it becomes;
$12 – Movies
$7 – Music
$12 – Games
$12 – Apps
For a total of $43 extra each month, and so on.
“isoHunt as a service does not infringe or facilitate copyright infringement, all they do is host .torrent files. ”
No, they don’t, n00b.
[quote comment="375608"]“isoHunt as a service does not infringe or facilitate copyright infringement, all they do is host .torrent files. ”
No, they don’t, n00b.[/quote]
Who’s the n00b? Isohunt collect, index, and host .torrent files from some 418 sites you dumbass.
[quote comment="374186"]@43
“Still a tracker doesn’t do anything illegal, it connects me to you and then we do illegal stuff.”
This is one thing that makes the analogy with Google invalid. A tracker *is* facilitating the sharing of the copyrighted material, while google is pointing to a file (torrent) that is pointing to the tracker that is connecting the peers doing the illegal sharing.
[/quote]
Nope a tracker facilitates the sharing of material, copyright or not. We, you and I are the ones using the trackers for ‘t3h 3vils’. We, you and I are solely the ones responsible for our actions whether it be creating and/or seeding pirate media or peering for it.
[quote comment="373060"]
You cannot sue someone who produces kitchenknifes because most of them is used for violence.[/quote]
Most of them? lmfao
maybe they should sue google next, and then the mpaa can eat their feet when google pwns them with thier money.
i just think that this is whole thing is funny because in a few years or so torrenting will be completely legal..old world companies are scrambling to figure out right now how to recoup their losses..what do u do?..sue!..but guess what?..it’s only a matter of time before this whole debate on file sharing gets thrown out and we’ll all be able to download whatever, without the anti-p2p groups breathing their stale breath down our necks..
our kids will grow up and we can tell them stories about how they actually threw people in jail for downloading files from the internet and how we fought the good fight for them..but they’ll just laugh at us because it will all seem so silly..
this is the future..they can’t fight it forever..
too many grey haired idiots who are scared of technology and can’t figure out how to stop the world from changing..someone should tell them the world isn’t flat anymore..
Nobody is going to fuck with Google. Its a ridiculous concept.
Its not a tool for you. Its a tool to watch you.
[quote comment="374552"]
Do you realize that going by your logic, if you had the names and numbers of thousands of cocaine dealers, and you gave them out freely to anybody looking for cocaine… You wouldn’t be guilty of facilitating cocaine use?
[/quote]
Perhaps that would be more like facilitating the illegal selling of cocain (which probably is illegal in some countries).
My main point is, however, that there are many much more serious reasons for legalizing file sharing and therefore also bt trackers, that “so and so are also doing it”.
And I’m not so fond of the kind of logic that says “guns don’t kill people, people do” because if you are to rid one of guns and people, which would you prefer to rid? Also, by that logic, isn’t selling cocain really not a bad thing? It’s up to the buyer to use it (which could have health implications) I’m merely the messenger (the google, the drug dealer).
I think it’s a matter of intent. At least that’s how the courts are going to look at cases like isohunt or the pirate bay. What did google want their service to be used for? Sharing material that is in most cases copyrighted? What did bittorrent tracker so and so want their service to be used for? Sure, you can share anything on ThePirateBay (wonder why they choose that name, by the way), but how are people using it?
I’m all for the “don’t shoot the messenger”, “net neutrality”, “file sharing is good for society and not necessarily causing any economic harm” and “there are much worse crime that they should focus on” kind of arguments.
I’m just saying that running a torrent search engine AND tracker software, isn’t exactly like Google (and certainly isn’t used the same way google is and for the same purposes or even using the same tech).
[quote comment="374552"]
Perhaps you should rethink your train of thought, because you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have Isohunt guilty while Google is innocent, nor can you have Isohunt innocent and while Google becomes guilty.
[/quote]
I’m not so sure that’s how things are going to end. I think neither should be found guilty but that’s not like saying they are the same.
While we all know that ISOHUNT’s sole reason for existence (at least when it started) is to provide a portal so people can find copyrighted material.
The good news is that now after it time and the thought of being sued the site has tried to change to offer legal content only under the guise of removing illegal content.
It has done absolutely nothing at all to stem the download of illegal content. If i want the newest edition of lost….i go to isohunt.com and search “lost 4 11″ and i will be able to download it in an hour.
So in short, while isohunt is nothing more than an illegal content download linker there is nothing illegal about the site itself other than allowing you to find downloads to copyrighted content that others have uploaded.
Any judgement in favour of the MPAA is wrong.
I’ll just make something… copyright it… make a torrent and post it… then sue the site. Damn, someone beat me to it.
And if someone downloads a portion of a file, it certainly can not be a copy righted work. Especially if the movie won’t even play, how would someone infringe on the movie owner’s rights if they are unable to. The tactics used can not distinguish this sadly, nor can those who use them realize that 0’s and 1’s are not copyrighted.
Wyatt Earp: Your comment of looking for porn is the point. You just seem to assume they will find legal porn.
I would take a guess a very very substantial portion of adult sites have content on them they don’t own the copyright to.
Therefore google links to copyrighted content. (Think their image search…)
[quote comment="379744"]While we all know that ISOHUNT’s sole reason for existence (at least when it started) is to provide a portal so people can find copyrighted material.
[/quote]
Get a brain, isoHunt has had a DMCA policy since the day it started. It also has helped in distributing linux and independent films and songs. Just because you look for movies does not mean the sole existence of a site is to find them for you.
If you own a movie, song or whatever there’s a page on the site telling you how to identify your property to the sites admins to have them remove it from their index.
I think your got mixed up with the pirategays.
“isoHunt as a service does not infringe or facilitate copyright infringement, all they do is host .torrent files. These files may or may not point to copyrighted material, but this seems to be irrelevant. The site is not alone, hundreds of sites index .torrent files, and even Google has a .torrent search command. BitTorrent or .torrent links have nothing to do with copyright infringement, nor do sites like isoHunt.” … torrent files are just metadata — information about information — and in and of themselves are legally covered … providing a host for searching for torrent files is no different than providing a host for searching for information … the MPAA will have an uphill battle trying to prove otherwise … [ADDENDUM] That organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA are attempting to use legal bullying tactics as a remedy for an antiquated business plan is a poor strategy that will earn them the enmity of their customer base … and trying to sell a product to a hostile market will lead to the undercutting of their profits as people will flock to any competitor they can find in order to not buy from a disliked organization’s product …
[quote comment="373060"][quote comment="372851"]Google will honour a DMCA takedown request where the party can show it is their copyright being infringed, Isohunt does the same. The MPAA may or may not make such requests to Google, who of course would comply, it seems however they make no such requests to Isohunt and instead just chose all out legal action, which hopefully backfire ,Isohunt would win and the future of all bittorrent site would be secured under the same precident. If however Isohunt lose this case, it will only be a matter of time before the MPAA and others use the same legal argument against the other major bittorrent sites.[/quote]
You cannot sue someone who produces kitchenknifes because most of them is used for violence.[/quote]
Good point, another analogy
you can’t sue the owner of a gun shop if the guns are used for violence.
the user who USED the gun for violence should be liable, not the owner of the gunshop, he is only distributing a variety of guns.
thus saying this
Gary Fung (ISOHunt Owner) should not be liable for such an action taken upon him by the MPAA.
He is only giving us (the users) a search engine to look up sources.
It is OUR choice whether to use this for legal or illegal purposes. It isn’t his fault we use it for illegal purposes.
to be hhonest i cant see the issue, i mean the only reason i could see isohunt losing is technically if the judge couldn’t contemplate the arguement (as most of these cases go) i mean its clear all isohunt does is what google does, their gun and boots store was a very good analogy as well, because that is all it really comes down to. From a logical standpoint they cant lose, but since when has court ever been logical LULZ.
I sincerely doubt the MPAA would ever sue Google, Google video or GooTube. Right now Google and hollywood have way too much to gain from each other. We’ve entered the age of user created content and pirated videos and it’s kind of become part of the culture now. The recording industry as we know it is dead. It’s been tossed out like yesterday’s garbage, and web 2.0 is taking over. The MPAA needs to do what Steve Jobs is doing with iTunes and come up with a new way to create a partnership. It’s the only way
“Get a brain, isoHunt has had a DMCA policy since the day it started.”
I have a no using the internet policy. Doesn’t mean i adhere to it.
“It also has helped in distributing linux and independent films and songs.”
I’ll give them a pat on the back…….
“Just because you look for movies does not mean the sole existence of a site is to find them for you.”
Did you bother to read everything i had said or just part of it then make the rest up?
I said, when it was first created that is what it was made for. Even if the owner says “no it wasn’t” he is wrong. No site could get big by solely distributing non-copyrighted material unless they are the manufacturer of it and then it is not a site for the sole purpose of seeing the content. They are the content source too. There is not the demand for it like there is for copyrighted material.
I have never yet failed to find anything i have wanted from ISOHUNT. Sometimes the seeds and peers are crap and ill use piratebay but both of the sites are basically interchangeable.
If one hasn’t got it the other one has.
“I think your got mixed up with the pirategays.”
They were made for doing copyrighted material too, they just haven’t tried to bluff everyone into thinking their sole intention was not to distribute copyrighted work. At least they are upfront about it.
Like i said though, any judgement in favour of the RIAA or MPAA in any cases is wrong. isohunt is NOT a manufacturer, distributor or worker in the process of copyrighted material.
They are more like a library that has no books but only information on how to get the books you want. They started off with records of where to find books such as “how to grow cannabis” and “the jolly roger cookbook” and loads of people went there because they knew that is where they would be able to find how to get their hands on the books of that nature. Now the library has got its fame it has decided to start stocking references and sometimes the books themselves to such things as the bible and the dictionary to make themselves look legit.
There is nothing illegal about what ISOHUNT is or does, even though its initial intention was for facilitating illegal activity, even if that is not the case now.
Myles (78)… you really are fucking tardcake
hmm 72 now … looks like some pruning happening
apparently there are more comments if you go through page to page rather than show all?
“Most kitchen knives (and guns,another common analogy) are used legally. The majority of bittorrent traffic is used to distribute copyrighted material. The majority of people using bittorrent trackers are engaging in an activity that is considered illegal in most developed countries. This is not the case with Google.”
^^ From somewhere in the beginning comments.
By that logic, earth if flat if enough people think it’s flat. Just beacuse majority of the people who use it for illegal purposes doensn’t make the whole thing illegal.
It appears to me that such cases when brought to trial in the US are decided according to ‘what’s best for the US’ – take MS for example.
This looks like the PGP/certificate issue – by trying to shut down torrent indexing sites in the US – the courts will open the way for such sites outside the US.
Do the US courts wish to bring about a repetition of the Thawte scenario?
The major studios etc. – only complain because distribution of copyright material by P2P does not suite their particular existing business model.
Does the use of P2P technology mean that consumers will lose out on content – or that the total quantity and quality of such intellectual material will decline?
No – it means that the creation and distribution of such content will be democratized – thus more variety and more choice for consumers.
The only losers are existing institutions with outdated business models – and artists who choose to distribute their material through these channels.
So I skipped the torrent, and rented a dvd for once from a localally owned service-station. I noticed at the beginning of the DVD that sale/rent/distribution of any sort for public viewing or for profits were expressly forbidden. My question is then, how many video-stores actually have licenses to rent out these copyrighted videos? So why isn’t the MPAA going through some of our video-stores?
14 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.