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
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All
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?
8 references to this post
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.