IsoHunt Petitions Canadian Court For Copyright Blessing 217
A Cow writes "As an act of self-defense, the popular BitTorrent site isoHunt has decided to file a petition to ask the Court of British Columbia to confirm that isoHunt — and sister sites Torrentbox and Podtropolis — do not infringe copyright. isoHunt owner Gary explains to TorrentFreak: 'Our petition summarizes BitTorrent technology, its open nature and a whole ecosystem of websites and operators that has developed around it, that CRIA does not own copyright to all files distributed over BitTorrent or on isoHunt websites, and we seek legal validation that we can continue to innovate within this emerging BitTorrent ecosystem on the Internet.'"
Re:paraphrased (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but you can't help but think that its interesting that the general public thinks that the commercial system for
media distribution sucks ass, and has developed not just one but several ways to illegally distribute content.
The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws on all this cyber stuff are totally wrong. It should be stated quite simply in the law that:
If you provide a service, such as a communication service, a file transfer service, a web-based service, or any kind of Internet-based service, and someone else who is using that service is doing something illegal or something they shouldn't be doing, then that someone else should be liable and you should NOT.
Think of it this way. You are a state. You build roads and freeways. Someone speeding along those roads gets in an accident and kills someone. Is it your fault or theirs? Theirs!
Another example: You are a state. You build roads and freeways. Someone is transporting illegal drugs around in a vehicle, using your roads and freeways to do so. Is it your fault or theirs? Theirs!
So why should a service that is based on the Internet be any different? Why should those providing the infrastructure be liable for bad things people do with that infrastructure? If infrastructure-providers were supposed to be liable because they somehow facilitate something bad, then why don't we go back to being cave-men, because anything and everything that we have in the world can be used for some bad purpose.
Re:paraphrased (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what he meant by "illegally distribute content" wasn't referring to the means of distribution. What the poster meant might have been illegal in the sense of distributing that specific content without a legal right to do so. There's nothing illegal about a blank CD, but buying that same disc with copied music on it is almost certainly illegal.
Re:I hope this doesn't cause more damage (Score:5, Insightful)
My college's anti-getting-their-ass-sued-by-the-RIAA propaganda has already melted the minds of a lot of people around here to thinking that any kind of file sharing, regardless of content, is illegal.
Agreed. As a new college freshman, I've met plenty of people who had BitTorrent on their computer and deleted it as to avoid any lawsuits. I figure keeping a copy of Transmission on-hand is fine so long as I don't go downloading illegal stuff.
wow, you didn't educate them?
This is how ignorance leads to government license to criminalize things (as in cold hard time)
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this? You build a road. You brag about how convenient your road is for transporting illegal drugs. You take steps to make it so the police will have trouble catching drug transporters on your road. Shouldn't you bear some of the responsibility for drug transport on your road?
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Then it seems that the drugs bought from the bootlegger come without the extra ingredients that prevent you from enjoying them at your leisure and you thank the owner of the road for bringing you high quality produce without the downsides.
Good move isohunt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Subscription (Score:5, Insightful)
I think media companies are shooting themselves in the foot, in the long run, by cracking down on Piracy.
Here's what's happened with me-- as I grew up, got to the real world, and started making more money, the cost of buying has been fewer and fewer %points of the amount I make. I feel less and less urge to download. All they'd have to do is offer a direct download service, or pay-for-and-be-reimbursed-some-for-using-bittorrent on their login-requiring tracker, and I'd probably just do that.
Therefor, the real thing they should be fighting for is a larger, more stable middle class of America, so that more people have disposable income, whatever actions on their part that entails. The easy solution would be to give everybody welfare checks, but then we'd become the Romans, and everybody knows how that worked out for them...
Second, for their benefit AND America's, they should focus less on fighting piracy in certain markets-- or risk being left behind when these markets take off (China, India, Russia [if their market ever takes off] and any other lower-income-no-middle-class-countries).
Why? An Italian man I met while in Florence had the absolute best English of almost any foreigners-speaking-English I've met in my [short] life. I asked him how he learned to speak so well, so fluently, and coherently-- he said he eventually stopped watching the English movies with Italian dubbing (terrible voice acting, the English voice acting is so much better he was saying), and went ahead and learned enough of it by watching American Hollywood movies, that he began switching the subtitles off, and simply listened to the dialog and eventually figured it out. What better way for them to increase their market share than let the production quality of their movies (and lets be honest, Hollywood films ARE the best, simply no one else has the capital or skill to pull off mass production of multi-hundred-million dollar movies like Matrix, Transformers, Batman, etc. on the scale that we do) speak for themselves, and once you've got the fish hooked and grown, you can start charging. Until that time though, the spread of American ideals and values (although contrary to the way our government currently operates-- privacy, freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to run business and oust a competitor through sheer technical superiority and efficiency of business-- (for instance, doesn't happen in China, you've got to know who to pay off and how much, when, etc. if you want to have a chance at starting a company)) would be far more valuable to them as a multi-national media corporation. (Because people will begin to see that free-market economics, freedom of speech, freedom to vote, are superior to the alternate methods of doing business and running a country; that we would be perpetuating the "great America" idealogy, "I can make my fortune and future there and then bring my family, and all will be well with me and my family", "democracy", as in a country lead by people elected (usually) by the majority of the people, and similar values, which the furthering of in the world would be good for America, would be spread to the nations and we'd have many more allies, and many fewer enemies.)
Potentially more valuable to our government as well. I would argue that the government should pay Hollywood a stipend for
a). them turning a blind eye to piracy external to English speaking countries and
b). a set number of propogandic films proclaiming the wonders of a free society, free economy, free competition, freedom to love who you choose, not who your parents say, and the benefits that brings to the every day citizens (a middle class, the American dream, a house, etc.), on the grounds that it's good for the government and security of western countries to bring them to our side-- from the bottom up. Want a great way to fight militant Islam? Torture isn't quite it, and force like in Iraq (though it definitely will work in the long run) is expensive, difficult to do, and leaves the surrounding countries envious, bitte
Re:I know I'm dreaming (Score:4, Insightful)
But I'm hoping that in trying this case, the court takes into account the media levy and clarifies the whole thing, pretty far on the side of the consumer.
Unlikely given their current strategy. They aren't trying to justify Canadians accessing copyrighted content without fee, but rather are essentially saying to CRIA, "Hey, guys, we're on your side. Just point out any torrents pointing to copyrighted material, and we'll take them right down".
But CRIA doesn't want to do that. Perhaps they feel it would be easier to just shut down isoHunt completely, rather than having to monitor it and report every single infraction they find.
isoHunt would win this one in a rational world. They host torrents, not copyrighted material. Not all torrents point to copyrighted material, and they not only stated, but demonstrated, a willingness to remove torrents which do point to copyrighted material.
The only argument CRIA could make is that isoHunt should be responsible for policing the torrents themselves, and have been negligent in this duty.
Re:Subscription (Score:3, Insightful)
CNN is no different then Fox News
in all fairness this isn't quite true.
CNN is merely amoral.
Fox news was founded on and operates with the express purpose of misinforming the american public and keeping the shrill, corrupt, and incompetent ultra-right in power.
Re:Sickening (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong. The equivalent analogy would be the Postal Service being held accountable for dealers sending drugs through the mail.
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Go the web site. Look at the list on the right labeled "top searches". At the moment, it reads:
1. axxo
2. fxg
3. spore
4. the dark knight
5. iron man
6. prison break
7. bangkok dangerous
8. psp
9. tropic thunder
10. stargate atlantis
11. pineapple express
12. pc games
13. mamma mia
14. 2008
15. metallica
16. disaster movie
17. death race
18. wanted
19. french
20. mummy tomb dragon emperor
The first two items, Axxo and FXG, are DVD rippers who distribute copyrighted content. The next 14 out of 18 are direct searches for copyrighted content. Linux ISOs don't even make the top 20. By the way, each one of those links goes to torrents that are obviously holding copyrighted content (unless "cam rip" has some new meaning I'm not aware of).
According to the site itself, its main purpose is helping people violate copyrights. The only way its owners can be unaware of this is if they've never visited their own homepage. Now really, I don't care if you engage in filesharing, but don't you think claiming ignorance is a little ridiculous here? Clicking on their most searched-for item gives you a list of *nothing but copyrighted content*!
Re:Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic why are drug traffickers held accountable?
A drug trafficker actually owns and then distributes the drug.
In your analogy, a torrent site would be like you walking up to a guy on the street, asking him "you know where I can buy some weed?" and he tells you "oh.. there's a guy over there I think.. he might not be there anymore... but there's a bunch of these guys around.. umm.. maybe that guy over there possibly." while pointing. He's not moving or selling the drugs, he is referring you to them.
Furthermore, it is the not the explicit intent of these sites to aid in 'finding drugs', but rather to aid in helping people find what they ask for and relaying the information as to where it is.
Get it?
Re:I hope this doesn't cause more seeds. (Score:1, Insightful)
Ummm, you do realize the story is about Isohunt trying to convince a Canadian COURT, not the RIAA, right? The RIAA is totally irrelevant in this story. The basic question is, is IsoHunt facilitating a crime by hosting torrents? The way to answer that question is simple. Go look. The rest is common sense.
Re:I know I'm dreaming (Score:5, Insightful)
IsoHunt has no way of knowing if:
1) the torrent contains what it says on the box
2) if the files in question are protected by copyright
3) if the holders of the copyright object to such distribution.
Only if all 3 of the above is true, the distribution of the files in the torrent might be considered illegal (and only by a court).
IsoHunt has no legal basis to determine any of the above. The copyright holders must monitor the files and notify IsoHunt of any discovered torrents with potentially infringing material.
They need to provide:
1) proof of content (actual content of the files in the torrent)
2) proof of copyright (papers that show that they are the copyright holders or their representatives in this case)
3) takedown notice (in writing)
After that is delivered (on paper, with proper signatures, via snail main), IsoHunt can take down the torrent as soon as possible. Due to limited staff time that might take up to two weeks. :)
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really care what the content industry does. I don't really care who shares what, either. What does bother me is two things. The first is that people try to claim some sort of moral high ground for downloading DVD rips. The second is that they use such shallow, hypocritical, and transparent excuses to justify it.
Content industry's evil? Then why are you making their product more popular? Why not just not spread it at all? Don't like DRM? Why help push it into existence? Want to support indie artists? Why not make more room for them in the torrent search results?
And then come the excuses. "What about people downloading Linux ISOs?". Yeah, I'm sure there are *tons* of people downloading Linux ISOs 24/7/365, because *none* of those distributions have auto-updating package managers. "The tracker search sites don't know what people are downloading!". And since they have no idea, they can't possibly organize the torrents into categories, right? Besides, who would actually, you know, *look* at their own web site? "How dare they cap my bandwidth, they advertised unlimited usage!". Except that no resource is unlimited in practice, and a site full of IT people suggesting ISPs design their networks for 24/7/365 full-throttle illegal usage is laughable. "File-sharing increases sales for content-producers!". Do you really think iTMS would ever have gotten off the ground if Napster had spent the last decade alive and at full strength?
File-sharers will argue every technicality to their last breath, but the moment someone else does so, it's pure evil. What if a company wants to spread your medical records around? Aren't those just "imaginary property"? Why should you get a say in what happens to those bits? What about Russian crackers stealing credit card numbers? Where are the cries of "that's not stealing, nothing was physically lost"? There's no consistency, no compromise, just selfishness. Anyone who can tell their ass from a hole in the ground can see that this silly file-sharing "movement" is really about getting as much free stuff as possible. I'm sick of hearing about it. Bring back the Slashdot that was really about tech news, not ridiculous crusades and libertarian frippery.
Re:Sickening (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I walk up to a guy on a street, and I ask him "where does John Smith live, I'm going to shoot him in the head with this gun", it's perfectly ok for him to tell me, and he shouldn't be held accountable for anything. Is that right?
While I would tell you that, yes, that man does not have a moral obligation to protect John Smith from you; I also think it is alarming that you bring murder of a human in analogy with potential losses of money.
life>money. You may not agree, and if so, I would pity you.
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
on't like DRM? Why help push it into existence?
That reason is fairly obvious: If DRM never works, there's no point in them using it. And gee golly gosh, now we're seeing music sites dropping it. It's funny what an expression of demand can cause.
And then come the excuses. "What about people downloading Linux ISOs?". Yeah, I'm sure there are *tons* of people downloading Linux ISOs 24/7/365, because *none* of those distributions have auto-updating package managers.
I've seen quite a few legit torrents, Linux and otherwise. It's a great way to send >1 gig files. I just purchased Modo today, for example, and I recieved a BT link to over a gig of training videos for it. When Buck Bunny, the Blender-made movie came out, you could not only download the huge-ass HD video, but you could also download all their content to play with. BT has plenty of legit uses and it's growing.
"How dare they cap my bandwidth, they advertised unlimited usage!". Except that no resource is unlimited in practice, and a site full of IT people suggesting ISPs design their networks for 24/7/365 full-throttle illegal usage is laughable.
So, in other words, they should never have used the word 'unlimited', right? Incidentally, it's not like 'illegal' usage is going to bog the network down more than 'legal' usage. Thanks to streaming video, there's lots of ways to spend lots of bandwidth. Heck, ask anybody with an XBOX 360. They oversold their capacity, that's not the pirates' fault.
"File-sharing increases sales for content-producers!". Do you really think iTMS would ever have gotten off the ground if Napster had spent the last decade alive and at full strength?
How do you think iTunes ever got off the ground? Haven't you ever wondered what made the music industry stop and say "Hmm.. maybe we should give this digital music thing a try?" Well, let me put it this way: They looooooooooved selling CDs. Albums, mind you. They loved charging everybody ~$20 for ~10 crappy songs. Then, one day, millions of people are downloading, ripping, and otherwise getting music onto their computers and eventually their MP3 players. But here's the funny thing, they're not really tightwads. $400 for an iPod, fill'er up.
You're asking how long iTunes would have been around when Napster was at 'full strength'. I have a counter-question: How long would it have taken for iTunes to get off the ground if Napster had never been around to show the world that a huge market existed?
"What if a company wants to spread your medical records around? Aren't those just "imaginary property"?"
What if I download an MP3 file and it stops a full-scale alien invasion? We can invent lots of scenarios, but let's try to keep it on Earth. My medical records going around can actually do me harm. I'd rather not let my enemies know that I'm allergic to peanuts. ;)
Where are the cries of "that's not stealing, nothing was physically lost"?
I think an emptying of a bank account would classify as 'physically lost'. In the case of music or movie downloads, the worst case scenario is the potential non-sale. The big question is how is that potential really turning out? GTA4 was a VERY highly anticipated game. Everybody was waiting for it. Arguably, a significant chunk of the XBOX 360 and PS3 populace would know how to download a torrent and burn it. The game was leaked a week before release. It made $500 million dollars. Fascinating. The RIAA claimed that a billion songs a month were flying around the internet without authorization, the implication being that a ridiculous amount of people were busy avoiding spending money on music. Profits are up over the years. Weird. Why is that happening?
Anyone who can tell their ass from a hole in the ground can see that this sil