IsoHunt Told To Pull Torrent Files Offline 392
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "The founder of popular Bit Torrent site IsoHunt, Gary Fung, has been ordered to remove the .torrent files for all infringing content — an order that could result in the site shutting down. US District Judge Stephen Wilson issued the order last week after years of back-and-forths over the legality of IsoHunt and Fung's two other sites (Torrentbox and Podtropolis). Fung claims he's still hoping for a more agreeable resolution that won't result in IsoHunt closing its doors, but for now, things aren't looking good for the torrent site."
they come and they go but there is one constant (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirate sites will go, and others will replace them, but there is a constant: like death and taxes, piracy will go on.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't his site handle DHT instead of .torrent files?
That's not the point. It's quite clear that technical circumvents to law (like the whole .torrent thing) don't work like that. If your intention is to run illegal site you will be held accountable. It's not just exactly about .torrent files, it's about the whole system and purpose.+
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this will affect me. Since I heard the following news yesterday, I have already uninstalled bittorrent.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/30/2352256/New-Litigation-Targets-20000-BitTorrent-Using-Downloaders?art_pos=1 [slashdot.org]
Say what you will about litigation against customers, it's effective and that is why they do it. It seems like shutting down sites like IsoHunt is a waste of time to copyright holders since so many others exist and will pop up. But sue a few customers and everything changes.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the point. It's quite clear that technical circumvents to law (like the whole .torrent thing) don't work like that. If your intention is to run illegal site you will be held accountable. It's not just exactly about .torrent files, it's about the whole system and purpose.+
In what way is this site "illegal" that does not also apply to a search engine such as Google?
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
(as abuse-handler, the best part of my job was to tell all morons sending me DMCA-notices to stuff it, since the DMCA is a US-thing and if they had a valid complaint to make they would say so instead of using silly DMCA-mails to abuse@xxx.com).
Re:they come and they go but there is one constant (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been saying that since the days when cheap imported sheet music was killing the American music industry.
In reality people will always do what people do- share art, music and culture with each other.(and pornography of course)
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:1, Insightful)
Because it's clear what The Pirate Bay's, Mininova's and IsoHunt's intention is, and because the content is 99% copyrighted material with no distribution rights from authors. Google's intention is completely different and they act on removal notices.
After Mininova was ordered to delete all the copyrighted content that was spread illegally, their site basically shut down. Even while they did keep the legal torrents (their distribution system for artists and so on)
Re:they come and they go but there is one constant (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that accused infringement-aiding sites have to prove is that they have significant non-infringing uses. This is obviously true for Google. It is not so obviously true for IsoHunt and others. Sure, you can find legal content (like the latest Linux distros and so forth) - but IsoHunt and its brethren are a) not the sole distribution method for aforementioned legal content and b) the amount of illegal content is significantly larger than the amount of legal content.
Re:They should more to a more civilized country (Score:5, Insightful)
If I do work today I don't continue getting paid for it 70 years after I'm dead... why should you?
Re:You mess with the bull, you get the horns (Score:5, Insightful)
When people start infringing copyrights, they are attacking centuries of legal thought.
No, less than a century of legal thought, as before the 20th century copyrights had reasonable lengths. I wonder how much "pirated" material is older than 20 years?
Copyright is not about ownership, it is about a limited time monopoly to get creators to create. Jimi Hendrix will perform no more; his work should be in the public domain, as should anything else longer than the length of an invention's patent. Nothing made before 1990 should be covered by copyright, and if it wasn't I believe there would be little piracy.
I'm sure creativity would evolve much faster. Like technology, art is built on what has come before. Nothing is created out of a vacuum.
Re:They should more to a more civilized country (Score:2, Insightful)
Because you weren't smart enough to copyright or obtain the copyright for the work?
Just because you choose to do all your production as a work-for-hire, doesn't mean everyone else wants to do so.
Re:They should more to a more civilized country (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep dreaming..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, yes it is. As far back as I can recall -- and that is a long way -- there has always been piracy. To think or even suggest that you can "dent" or outright stop piracy is just wishful thinking. It always has been.
The method will differ, that's all. Goodbye torrents, hello ?????
The only reason this seems odd is because over the last 10 years, the general public has gotten into piracy in a big way. If that hadn't have happened and it was much more "low key" -- we wouldn't be having this discussion and you, most likely, would not even realize piracy was taking place. Now we have torrents. Before that we had http. Before that we had SFTP. Before that we had FTP. Before that we had Zmodem on BBS's. Before that, we had X/Ymodem. And before that we had sneakernet.
The evolution continues...
(sidenote: Remember rule #1. I purposely have a glaring oversight in the list above. Can you spot it? LOL)
Re:They should more to a more civilized country (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The war on torrents... (Score:3, Insightful)
Until consumers have a compelling reason to buy an authorized copy
Thats the problem with the system - is that an unauthorized copy can be more than enough for most people. So what are you going to do to make the authorized copy more compelling?
Name something you can add to an authorized copy that can't be added to an unauthorized copy. Aside from something physical you can't download (like a poster), or locking it with DRM (which people fight against) you simply can't make it more compelling to buy.
Tell you what - implement a system that says if I own every CD by a given band, and I take it down to Ticketmaster I can get 50% off the ticket price for that band - I will certainly revert to buying CD's once again.
I'm living in a dream world - no one wants to make authorized copies THAT compelling to buy, theres no money in it!
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
The only content on those sites is
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
google certainly isn't the only place to get anything.
Nobody said it was.
If you turn off safe search I think you'll find the amount of illegal content does not significantly overshadow legal content on Google unless you put in very particular search terms. Also, the hit-rate of legal vs. illegal content on a typical search matters probably more than the actual amount indexed.
The difference isn't just scale; the proportions are extremely skewed, and I will bet dollars to donut-holes that the large majority of Google searches are intended to find content legally and that they successfully do find content legally, whereas with IsoHunt it's just the opposite. The point of IsoHunt -- the point of it! -- is to get things for free that the content creators or owners have not chosen to make freely available. The point of Google is to get information that has been made freely available, usually by content creators and owners.
Sometimes people have ethical justifications:
"I own a copy but it broke"
Okay, I personally think that's fair. I also think it's rare, but it's fair.
"I want a demo before wasting my money and they won't give me one"
Then don't buy it if they don't give you a demo. Why do you have a right to a demo of a video game? I recognize people disagree with me.
"Movie studios overcharge"
You don't want to pay, you don't have to, but then why should you get to see the movie?
"I'm poor/a student/etc."
Mmm-hmm. They aren't withholding your daily bread from you.
"They don't sell this where I'm from; it's unavailable through any reasonable legal channel"
I'm okay with this one, personally, particularly if it's clear that they will *never* release it in your locale (unlike if they are planning to release it 3 days later).
"I just don't want to pay for it"
Well, at least you're honest, Mr. Strawman.
"I hate this DRM crap -- I did pay for a real copy"
Sure, whatever, same as the broken DVD as far as I'm concerned; you did your part.
Re:The war on torrents... (Score:2, Insightful)
as likely to be won by the content holders as the 'War on Drugs' to be won by the Federal Govt
Considering that drug prohibition rakes billions of dollars through the business of government every year, I'd say yes, drug prohibition is a HUGE win -- for those at the top of the power pyramid.
You're not in the business of government, are you?
Re:You mess with the bull, you get the horns (Score:3, Insightful)
And when copyright terms are extended, it is also an attack on centuries of legal thought. The sole purpose of copyright is to enrich the public domain by promoting the publishing of art and sciences by granting a limited monopoly on distribution. Extending the term of that copyright is a direct attack on that sole purpose, while "piracy" is merely an attack on the method of promotion.
Copyright law is a misnomer, it is really copyright restriction. We all have a right to copy anything we want, this is a natural right inherent in our humanity. It is as natural as our freedom to think, speak, walk or defend ourselves. Copyright law restricts that right temporarily, so that in time we will have a richer and deeper culture to share in the future. The extension of copyright for profit is theft of the highest order, it is stealing from every man, woman and child in existence and leaves humanity as a whole poorer.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
The DMCA provisions in question don't mention percentages, majority, or any other such terms. They protect search engines, period, provided that the provider:
a. does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing
b. in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
c. upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
Besides, the percentages are due to the nature of .torrent files and the fact that this search engine limits its results to those files, which cannot be a copyright violation per se. If Google provided a separate torrent search area for searching for torrent files, they would have a 95% illegal content rate, too unless the MPAA members gave them a specific list of torrents to exclude.
In short, the case hinges on whether the people responsible for ISOHunt know or should have known that content was infringing. Yes, if you look at a specific infringing torrent file, one could argue that they should have know, but the same can be said about a Google search. In aggregate, one can reasonably argue that filtering or pre-screening such a large volume of hits is unreasonable, and as such, they cannot reasonably have been aware of infringement....
Re:It's stupid really (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but your premise is incorrect; you will indeed be shut down by the police. In a drug ring they will use words like "conspiracy". In a copyright context they'll use words like "contributory infringement". In both cases it means "you can't legally profit from helping others to commit crimes".
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>If your intention is to run illegal site you will be held accountable.
Isohunt doesn't run a tracker. They don't even host the actual torrent files. They simply provide a convenient search engine, and then download the torrent from the original source (example: from piratebay). It's like google, if google specialized in only searching for *.tor files.
Aside -
- I better hurry up and find a different source for my "NapisyPL" files. I like these files due to their tiny size (70 or 130 MB), but have no clue where they originated from. Time to find out before isohunt disappears.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the same thing, not even close to the same thing. Telling someone about something illegal or how to do it is not the same as doing it. The MPAA/RIAA is attempting and succeeding at rewriting the rules to maintain their existing business model. Copyright/patents protections were never intended to be a lifetime stream of guaranteed income by content organizations, they were meant to advance technology and innovation. That concept is gone and we are seeing the affects. Remember the safe harbor provisions that were acceptable a few years ago? That will be going away soon. Remember the VCR time shiffing issue? How about the home recording act changes to the copyright policy when DAT players started showing up (serial copy control)? The rules are changing.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's clear what The Pirate Bay's, Mininova's and IsoHunt's intention is, and because the content is 99% copyrighted material with no distribution rights from authors.
99% of what Google indexes is copyrighted material, and they have no distribution rights from authors.
Visit your local library (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was a lad long, long ago we had no internet and only two tv channels. Usually there wasn't anything on worth watching. I read a lot of books.
Most cities have these buildings full of books and even media, which they seem perfectly happy to loan out for free. I'm not entirely sure what their business model is, but they've been doing this for as long as I can remember, so it appears viable, strange though that may seem. It might be time to rediscover them.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Google's intention is completely different and they act on removal notices.
So too does Isohunt. If a company says, "Stop linking to the *.tor file for my Hollywood Blockbuster," then Isohunt complies. It's just the same way that Google or Youtube operate.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean "these days"?
Re:They should more to a more civilized country (Score:2, Insightful)
If I do work today I don't continue getting paid for it 70 years after I'm dead... why should you?
Although I completely agree that the extention of copyright to ever-increasing terms is scandalous and that it should be restricted to the original 10-20 years, I don't buy the argument above. Say I build a house today that I rent out and which generates income for me during my lifetime - should my family be denied that income (or even the house itself!) after I die?
Similarly, if a writer publishes a book today, and then dies a year from now, his family should be able to benefit from his work for a reasonable period of time.
Obviously, the house is a tangible asset while a work of art is not (at least, not in the case of books), but you cannot simply state that my descendants shouldn't receive any income from either asset after I die.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmmm last time I checked and read the actual facts .torrent files are basically like index files that point you to where a file is located. IsoHut, The Pirate Bay, etc have never hosted the content on any of their servers. The users are the ones responsible. You are trying to blame the tool for what the user does with it. Google is in fact a tool that can be used to find infringing content just like these sites that hold .torrent files, some of which might point to infringing content. Also could you please provide evidence that 99% of all torrent files are illegal?
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
"Because it's clear what The Pirate Bay's, Mininova's and IsoHunt's intention is"
It's pretty clear what Google's intention of adding "filetype:torrent" to their search metadata is - to allow someone to find a torrent file without needing to go to those bothersome sites and search.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all any tracker is. What, exactly, is illegal about "file sharing" per se?
IsoHunt, TBP, et al have never passed a single byte of copyrighted content across their servers. So where is this illegality you speak of?
Here, let me help...
Where it does exist (and you'll get no argument from me on that point) it exists on the machines of, and in the actions of, those who illegally share copyrighted material.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
WRONG. It is well known that sites like IsoHunt have significant noninfringing uses because significant refers to the quality of the use, not the quantity (see Grokster.) Obviously, torrent trackers are great for distributing noninfringing material cheaply, which is a significant use.
Significant noninfringing use, DMCA Safe Harbor, fair use, etc... none of that applies if your intent was to help people infringe and profit from it. The public record abounds with Fung's intent. Fung got up on TV and bragged about how the reason people were coming to his site was to get a free copy of The DaVinci Code. The "titles" for users in his online forum were all references to piracy. There's a lot more in the court documents.
Fung is going down because of his own thoughts and words, not because he was unable to prove that his site is good for things other than infringement.
Re:they come and they go but there is one constant (Score:2, Insightful)
i object to the "+5 insightful" tag of my post. I have read comments here on slashdot that were leaps and bounds more insightful than the one I posted. I suppose it's because I posted it in "the root"
Re:The war on torrents... (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on what we're talking about.
Music, for various reasons, is just too convenient to pirate. Most people can't tell the difference between a decent-quality MP3 and CD quality. It's already in a format you're most likely going to want it in (unlike physical CDs), they're small enough that even if the seeders aren't very fast you're not waiting very long for your file. The only way they can compete is price. I bought far more music from allofmp3 back in the day than I bought from iTunes. 99 cents is getting there, but I still find it too pricey and I really loved the ability to get the song in the quality of my choice. These are things that a company could easily offer, by the way. Other than price it probably wouldn't bring too many people in, but it's not like it takes a ton of money or time up front to get working.
Movies, on the other hand, are a pain to pirate. They're large, requiring good seeds. You typically find an H264 .avi file which, while nice quality, is likely not as good as DVD quality. And I'd be willing to bet that a large number of people simply end up burning these to disc anyway, which requires the purchase of a disc, burn time, and potentially time to encode it into a DVD format before the burn. A good, fast, and significantly cheaper download service would help a lot. $15 for a downloaded copy is still too much; the price point needs to be closer to $10 to get significantly higher uptake.
Games are similar. They're large files, and extremely high virus risks, and they almost certainly just get burned up to a disc anyway. All of this is time and effort on top of the actual pirating. Buying the games online offers you no discount at all, despite the inconvenience and time consumption involved in the process compared to buying a physical copy. And again, price.
Some things for all media to take note of:
1. Yes, it's about price. Sorry. I'm not saying that every single person would turn form pirate to customer with a price drop, but you WILL significantly see demand increase with price drops. Some of these drops need to be big, some need to be smaller. Games in particular, but even movies to a lesser extent, are too much a decision to buy. Get the prices into the impulse category and watch your sales explode.
2. Stop with DRM of any kind. These is no reason that it should be less convenient to own a legitimate copy of something than a pirated one. I don't want to rely on your DRM servers being up. I don't want to be forced to sit through FBI warnings or previews that I've seen 50 times before and have no interest in watching. I don't care if your previews automatically update themselves through the Internet. It's not the point.
3. You need to be convenient. That means good selection, good choice, fast download speeds. That means cheaper prices when I'm getting less (digital vs. physical copies). Maybe even throw in a physical copy with a digital purchase as an option; charge $5 more and you'll probably even make money even on top of production and shipping for people who choose the option. Take Disney's approach: If I buy a Blu-Ray movie, toss in a DVD disc and a digital copy--sans DRM--in the case. My parents STILl haven't seen The Dark Knight because I bought it in Blu-Ray and they don't want to sit in my room watching a movie for three and a half hours. I'm not trying to screw you (I already made the purchase!) Stop being paranoid.
4. For all the talk of piracy, you're still turning strong profits. Remember that. You should care about piracy, but you should also realize there is room to drop prices and add features without impacting your product. And in areas where you do have to, deal with it. The days of becoming an instant millionaire by releasing a popular CD are probably over. You aren't getting them back, so just learn to live with that and act according to the new realities.
5.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Google The Big Bang Theory torrent [google.com]: 98% of the first page are copyright infringement (and the remaining 2% are Mininova, which gained a big PageRank when it had illegal torrents). How is that different from searching "The Big Bang Theory" on a torrent specialized site such as Isohunt? But they go after Isohunt and not Google, when the exact same query gives the exact same results. And yes, "The Big Bang Theory" in a torrent-only search is the same as "The Big Bang Theory torrent" in a general search.
Re:Visit your local library (Score:3, Insightful)
Most cities have these buildings full of books and even media, which they seem perfectly happy to loan out for free. I'm not entirely sure what their business model is, but they've been doing this for as long as I can remember, so it appears viable, strange though that may seem. It might be time to rediscover them.
Until the Dewey Decimal System is identified as "An indexer providing links to materials under copyright" and gets shut down by the courts. Oh sure, Melvil Dewey might try to claim he was only trying to provide a way for people to find material, but the links in the Dewey Decimal System clearly link to material he doesn't own, and that he has no right to make available.
Re:They should more to a more civilized country (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong question. Would having a 20-year copyright have a deleterious effect on creating new works? I rather think not; I doubt many business ventures rely on payments 20 years away for their justification.
Now, what benefit would I have from a 20-year copyright? Far more material in the public domain. Far less lost creative material (it's easy for things to get lost over 70+ years of neglect). Less problem with reproducing creative work; consider the TV show "WKRP in Cincinatti" which cannot be reproduced due to music copyright issues, or Infocom's "Shogun" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". No drags on derivations from stuff that came out in my lifetime.
I don't know that 20 years is the right number, but it looks like a whole lot better bet than life + 70.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
Since one cannot read minds, the best way to determine intention of a service provider is to see how they react to take-down notices (and similar requests to cooperate). TPB was nailed precisely for that thing - they not only ignored them, they cataloged them (thus proving that they have received and read them), and then ignored them.
But, so far as I know, IsoHunt does respect take-down requests. In fact, it complies with DMCA rules for that. So long as they do that, I don't see why allegations of aiding copyright infringement should have any substrance.
Re:Bah....Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
He was told to take down illegal torrents, the same as google could be told to take down links to copyrighted works, if he refuses to comply, he loses safe harbour.