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
93 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
[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.
5 references to this post
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
Add your response