Seriously, we're exactly like Google! isoHunt makes its case

[macf13nd]

Doesn't Google just link to sites like IsoHunt?

Yep, it does. Google isn't tracking torrents itself which is probably why they aren't being held accountable. IsoHunt on the other hand is a torrent tracker.

is Isohunt actually a tracker???

I thought the torrents on there were all using the open bittorrent tracker, or the piratebay tracker (whatever it's turned into)

I don't think they run their own tracker.

[Maximum Error]

Take one down and 2 more pop up.

It's a losing battle for the RIAA.

Once IPv6 comes full force and we all conect directly to the internet without ISPs, censorship will simply fall out the window. (Which is a good thing).

Either you know some really inventive way of getting connecting to the internet or your talking rubbish. You will always need an ISP, we'll never be able to just "connect directly to the internet".

[etempest]

Simple, you have a dedicated search engine just for ISO's focusing on Illegal Software, vs Google which tried to index the internet internet.

That's why Google's not the same as ISO Hunt.

However, if ISO doesn't do any hosting / or acting as a tracker, then they shouldn't get in trouble either.

[todd]

Solid Knights point is good.

The difference here is that when your search for a Torrent on Google you will be given links to sites like IsoHunt in which you can download the*.torrent file.

IsoHunt is right that they are merely a search engine, for Torrents only however. They are correct that they don't actually store the media since they are not a tracker, but you are still a medium in which people can download the *.torrent file to connect the tracker.

The difference here is that you cannot download the torrent file directly on Google

Once all hosting sites like IsoHunt are down then you should see less on Google I am assuming

But a .torrent file isn't illegal as far as I'm aware.

[nub]

Not all torrents are illegal

[_BeanZ_]

Google doesn't allow you to browse by category (i.e. movie, tv, games, etc.) or submit your own torrents... :shiftyninja:

[ylcard]

Google doesn't allow you to browse by category (i.e. movie, tv, games, etc.) or submit your own torrents... :shiftyninja:

You can search for specific file types using Google, like *.mp3 or *.avi or *.mkv.

You can also search for images which can also be copyrighted, unless they have some awesome code that prevents that, but I don't know about that..

You don't need to submit anything because it has everything, it "submits" new content automatically, if you will..

[Solid Knight]

You can search for specific file types using Google, like *.mp3 or *.avi or *.mkv.

You can also search for images which can also be copyrighted, unless they have some awesome code that prevents that, but I don't know about that..

You don't need to submit anything because it has everything, it "submits" new content automatically, if you will..

Again, you're just searching the contents of another site as a search engine is supposed to do. This issue was handled in court before and it was determined that Google cannot be held responsible for the content on another site. Sites like IsoHunt and the Pirate Bay were not covered by this protection. But really, its IsoHunt's lax attitude about removing copyrighted material that lands them in hot water. I doubt it'd be difficult for them to write a script to remove links to torrents that contain a copyrighted title. But of course they don't. They don't even offer to work with these guys on proactive basis.

[ylcard]

isoHunt is a search engine as well, it just operates differently. Why would TPB or isoHunt remove copyrighted material ? It's there on purpose, whatever they say to the press, they want the torrents on their sites.

Google should work on their code as well, they should not allow the search for extensions and whatever else that helps people download copyrighted stuff.

It's exactly like isoHunt, except that in isoHunt you download torrents "directly", in Google you download from the page that was in your search results, results are the same, copyrighted material is downloaded illegally.

[lalalawawawa]

isoHunt is a search engine as well, it just operates differently. Why would TPB or isoHunt remove copyrighted material ? It's there on purpose, whatever they say to the press, they want the torrents on their sites.

Google should work on their code as well, they should not allow the search for extensions and whatever else that helps people download copyrighted stuff.

It's exactly like isoHunt, except that in isoHunt you download torrents "directly", in Google you download from the page that was in your search results, results are the same, copyrighted material is downloaded illegally.

"Google should work on..."

And lose thousands of people that use Google's search engine?

[Solid Knight]

isoHunt is a search engine as well, it just operates differently. Why would TPB or isoHunt remove copyrighted material ? It's there on purpose, whatever they say to the press, they want the torrents on their sites.

Google should work on their code as well, they should not allow the search for extensions and whatever else that helps people download copyrighted stuff.

It's exactly like isoHunt, except that in isoHunt you download torrents "directly", in Google you download from the page that was in your search results, results are the same, copyrighted material is downloaded illegally.

Yeah because .avi, .mpg, .mp3, et cetera are only used on copyrighted materials and there aren't nearly a billion legit files with those extensions. But like I said early, Google or any other web-search engine aren't designed for you to download copyrighted material. The Pirate Bay, IsoHunt, and other sites really only exist to exchange copyrighted material.

[ylcard]

So what if they are ? Would it help you sleep at night if they told you they didn't mean for it to happen and it's all a misunderstanding, that they originally planned to serve only legal torrents such as Open Office, Linux and other open source software ?

Because apparently that's all they should do, since only the "intent" differentiates them from Google.

After all they're as helpless as Google when it comes to controlling the content of the users (internet).

[Solid Knight]

Because apparently that's all they should do, since only the "intent" differentiates them from Google.

Yeah, intent. Who cares about intentions? It's not like intention is the difference between manslaughter and murder. It's not like they try to prove your intentions in court.

[ylcard]

So, like I've said, do you want them to apologize and say that they didn't mean to ?

Then they'll be exactly like Google.

[mr.r9]

Torrents aren't all illegal. Some amateurs like to upload their videos online :shiftyninja:

[Udedenkz]

Torrents aren't all illegal. Some amateurs like to upload their videos online :shiftyninja:

Not all music was illegal on Napster either...

[Andre S. Veteran]

Well isohunt cannot say they are merely a search engine, because they're not. They host and provide .torrent files, and provide search through their database.

A pure torrent search engine would be something like torrentz.com.

[Osiris]

who gives a toss, they can persecute isohunt to the high hills, more will rise again or more will move to rapidmegahotfile model.

[Solid Knight]

So, like I've said, do you want them to apologize and say that they didn't mean to ?

It's an issue of legality. You can't willingly host illegal material (or simply do nothing about it) and just apologize and have all the charges dropped.

[+Warwagon MVC]

What if someone produced a "phone book" of all the known drug dealers and how to get a hold of them? Would they get arrested?

[hdood]

So what if they are ? Would it help you sleep at night if they told you they didn't mean for it to happen and it's all a misunderstanding, that they originally planned to serve only legal torrents such as Open Office, Linux and other open source software ?

Because apparently that's all they should do, since only the "intent" differentiates them from Google.

After all they're as helpless as Google when it comes to controlling the content of the users (internet).

Well actually, Google does censor search results on quite a large scale, although they can't be expected to do any censoring that they aren't legally required to do.

You like to pretend that intent is irrelevant, but it's actually a fundamental part of law. The fact that you can find pirated stuff through Google is an unavoidable side effects. Not so for sites like The Pirate Bay (and probably IsoHunt too.) They're designed for this purpose, and it shows. It's completely intentional, and they even make money from it. They could apologize and redesign their service (Why haven't they already? Because they don't actually want to take measures to limit piracy even though they can), but they would still be liable for their past actions.

And to the guy who asked if torrent files are illegal, yes, in many jurisdictions it can be illegal to link to pirated stuff under certain circumstances. Whether it's an anchor tag in HTML or a torrent file doesn't usually matter from a legal point of view.

[ylcard]

Let's clear one thing up, *.torrent is NOT illegal, it's like saying *.mkv is illegal, or *.mp3, the illegal part is whatever is inside the file under that extension.

So let's not talk about torrents as legal/illegal, it's the content that matters.

This brings us to the next issue, hosting *.torrent files is not illegal, even if you really really really want it to be illegal, hosting illegal content is indeed illegal.

This brings us to the next issue... isoHunt (and every other site) doesn't host the illegal material on their server.

Didn't know about Google's censor thing, I think I've mentioned before that I didn't know much about their capabilities, so it's nice to know :)

About being liable for past actions, should YouTube be liable for copyrighted content that its users upload ? Granted it's deleted as soon as detected, but it was still there, and correct me if I'm wrong - millions of people could have seen it by then.

Don't get me wrong, I know that they're dealing with illegal content and such, I recognize the fact that torrents hold illegal content, I don't need lessons on that.

Still, I don't see anything wrong with sites such as TPB or isoHunt, I say this without the intention of starting another topic about how wrong am I - people "pirate" for a reason, be it illegal and whatthe****ever, but there are worse things done, like Ubisoft's DRM that goes unpunished, or the backwards ass MW2, or the newest pile of crap that is Alpha Protocol in addition to SEGA's new DRM that failed miserably.

That's all fine and dandy, right ? They're ****ing stealing our money and it's ok, but when we supposedly "steal" their sales, we're criminals.

[hdood]

This brings us to the next issue, hosting *.torrent files is not illegal, even if you really really really want it to be illegal, hosting illegal content is indeed illegal.

This brings us to the next issue... isoHunt (and every other site) doesn't host the illegal material on their server.

It doesn't matter. They do not have to actually host the copyrighted material themselves. Simply running a service whose purpose is to facilitate it is enough. This is true in the US, and it is true in Scandinavia, and in all the cases I can think of linking has been at the center of it.

About being liable for past actions, should YouTube be liable for copyrighted content that its users upload ? Granted it's deleted as soon as detected, but it was still there, and correct me if I'm wrong - millions of people could have seen it by then.

Since YouTube provides hosting, they can be liable for illegal content they know of, yes. However, because the copyright infringement is a side-effect instead of their core business, and because they remove infringing content as soon as they are made aware of it (as well as take preventative measures), they should be in the clear.

This is different from running an illegal service for years and then having a change of heart and deciding you want to repent.

Don't get me wrong, I know that they're dealing with illegal content and such, I recognize the fact that torrents hold illegal content, I don't need lessons on that.

Still, I don't see anything wrong with sites such as TPB or isoHunt

If you accept that torrents can point to illegal content (not hold it, torrents are links), then I'm not sure why you have such a hard time understanding that aiding in this activity can also be illegal.

[Solid Knight]

If you accept that torrents can point to illegal content (not hold it, torrents are links), then I'm not sure why you have such a hard time understanding that aiding in this activity can also be illegal.

I suppose he's never heard of a the various charges that can be brought against you for knowingly involving yourself in a crime.

[treemonster]

there seems to be alot of misconcpetions about american copyright law here and in any thread realted to thse sorts of stroies.

according to the DMCA, hosts of user generated sites such as youtube are not required to actively search out copyrighted amterial. it is up to copyright holders to search out said content the hold the copyrights to and file a dmca takedown request and forward it to the host.

now in youtube's case they do have filters to prevent certain copyrighted material from showing as soon as it's uploaded but that because they aggressively pursue licensing deals with major copyright holders.

yotube will also comply to DMCA takedown request even when the material clearly falls under fair use. which many copyright holders abuse without risk(the risk of filing false DMCA takedown notices in a malicious manner or otherwise is federal felony charges) and it's up to creators who upload material that complies with fair use to fight the case themselves, with the risk of penalty if youtube disagrees. sometimes it takes going to a lawyer to get your video restored.

now there are precedents in other parts of US law for facilitating access to illegal goods and services, which is applicable here. but it is beyond the scope of the DMCA far and wide.

i'll also note that isohunt being canadian isn't really subject to american laws. it can be accessed by americans through the internet, but the internet knows no borders. what isohunt does is more or less entirely legal in canada. it is quite legal to share media as long as you don't profit from it. this includes mix tapes, "taping" shows, sending files to friends and so on. it does not extend to stealing services such as stealing cable or bringing a camera into a movie theater, both of which are quite illegal in canada.

so why go after isohunt and not google? because isohunt is the easier target. they don't have the funds for a top end legal defence team to drag this through the courts for years, and once a precedent is set by winning the case against google, the copyright holders' conglomerate can set their sights on bigger fish like google and force them to filter search results.

at this time the judge seems to be leaning towards forcing isohunt to filter perfectly legal to search for words and strings such as 24 and such that appear in copyright holder owned material titles. keeping in mind that such titles often use common untrademarkable names words and phrases that are in common with materials that hold broader users licenses or are in teh public domain.

the end results? the copyright holders' conglomerate eventually forces google to filter a host of common words that they determine and which grows as time goes on. the media companies gain control of the internet in several key ways, dominate how information is disseminated, control access to totally legal information related to or not related to their IPs, and continue to increase their control over things that do not relate to their business whatsoever while claiming "piracy" is hurting their profits instead of giving them free advertising while the continue to reap record profits and sales in every market, especially those in which they claim piracy is the worst.

btw if i claimed i claimed held the copyright to the name "neowin" and filed a DMCA takedown request and forwarded it to neowin's owners, they would be forced to take it down or fight my DMCA takedown request via legal means. if i could prove i used and copyrighte dor trademarked the name or some part of way the site operates and won the case there would be penalties to the owners/hosts of neowin for not complying with my takedown request immidiately and for fighting the case. meanwhile if my takedown request was found to be false and etc, i could face federal prison times and hefty fines. but it's harder to pursue a false DMCA takedown request than it is to file the request.