dslreports logo
 story category
MPAA Must Show Infringement In ISOHunt Case
Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence....
File sharing websites worldwide haven't had a particularly good few months in the courts, when you consider the settlement judgment against the Pirate Bay (for whatever it's worth) and the recent ruling against Mininova. However, BitTorrent website ISOHunt did get a good bit of news in that the Judge in their case has ruled the MPAA must actually prove infringement by U.S. users. That may sound like common sense, but it's something the MPAA hasn't yet been asked to do -- actual evidence instead of broad accusation being a true rarity in many of the cases against these sites.
view:
topics flat nest 

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Difference

The difference here (from the Pirate Bay) is the following:

1) They don't host the tracker, although they host the .torrent file
2) They haven't blatantly taunted copyright holders

As usual, ISOHunt's attorney doesn't get it. He states there is no difference between ISOHunt and Google, but there is. See #1 above. Because of his ignorance, ISOHunt will likely lose.

I am glad to see the judge ask for proof that people in the U.S infringed, which will likely only require an IP address. The MPAA tried to use EVERY ISOHunt user as proof of infringement, even users in other countries. The judge correctly swatted them for this.

hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium Member
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA

hopeflicker

Premium Member

Re: Difference

said by Matt3:

The difference here (from the Pirate Bay) is the following:

1) They don't host the tracker, although they host the .torrent file
2) They haven't blatantly taunted copyright holders

As usual, ISOHunt's attorney doesn't get it. He states there is no difference between ISOHunt and Google, but there is. See #1 above. Because of his ignorance, ISOHunt will likely lose.

I am glad to see the judge ask for proof that people in the U.S infringed, which will likely only require an IP address. The MPAA tried to use EVERY ISOHunt user as proof of infringement, even users in other countries. The judge correctly swatted them for this.
Im willing to bet that google has far more links to copyrighted files that any torrent/forum combined. To me, google is the biggest threat in linking to "illegal files".

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

1 recommendation

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Difference

said by hopeflicker:

Im willing to bet that google has far more links to copyrighted files that any torrent/forum combined. To me, google is the biggest threat in linking to "illegal files".
Google makes an attempt to respond to DMCA requests and even disables certain search combinations. Again, it's not the same thing and I would wager the court agrees with that stance. Google has MANY other applications, if you took away torrent files, what would ISOHunt's purpose be?

hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium Member
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA

hopeflicker

Premium Member

Re: Difference

said by Matt3:
said by hopeflicker:

Im willing to bet that google has far more links to copyrighted files that any torrent/forum combined. To me, google is the biggest threat in linking to "illegal files".
Google makes an attempt to respond to DMCA requests and even disables certain search combinations. Again, it's not the same thing and I would wager the court agrees with that stance. Google has MANY other applications, if you took away torrent files, what would ISOHunt's purpose be?
Im not necessarily looking at the purpose between google and torrent sites, im merely looking at who has more links, who is the bigger threat.

Do i go after the entire city that is filled with crack dealers or do i just go after ONE of the crack houses in that city.

(i know,poor analogy, but it get's the point across)

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Difference

said by hopeflicker:

said by Matt3:
said by hopeflicker:

Im willing to bet that google has far more links to copyrighted files that any torrent/forum combined. To me, google is the biggest threat in linking to "illegal files".
Google makes an attempt to respond to DMCA requests and even disables certain search combinations. Again, it's not the same thing and I would wager the court agrees with that stance. Google has MANY other applications, if you took away torrent files, what would ISOHunt's purpose be?
Im not necessarily looking at the purpose between google and torrent sites, im merely looking at who has more links, who is the bigger threat.

Do i go after the entire city that is filled with crack dealers or do i just go after ONE of the crack houses in that city.

(i know,poor analogy, but it get's the point across)
Yes, but if you take the .torrent site offline, all of Google's links to that .torrent site are immediately invalidated because they don't host the tracker nor the .torrent file. Likewise, taking TPB offline was likely a pretty big blow to ISOHunt, because they don't host a tracker.

A good way to skirt all these issues, would be for a service to index the .torrent files, but not host them. They would link to random, ever changing web hosts that actually host the .torrent files, and then use a service like openbittorrent for the tracker.

The only real thing that will accomplish though is sending the RIAA/MPAA after more users who are part of the swarm. So it would be a mixed blessing.

knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN

knightmb

Member

Re: Difference

said by Matt3:

Yes, but if you take the .torrent site offline, all of Google's links to that .torrent site are immediately invalidated because they don't host the tracker nor the .torrent file. Likewise, taking TPB offline was likely a pretty big blow to ISOHunt, because they don't host a tracker.

A good way to skirt all these issues, would be for a service to index the .torrent files, but not host them. They would link to random, ever changing web hosts that actually host the .torrent files, and then use a service like openbittorrent for the tracker.

The only real thing that will accomplish though is sending the RIAA/MPAA after more users who are part of the swarm. So it would be a mixed blessing.
Not true, as I posted some time ago with a simple cache check, they host the same torrent files as the website provider in their cache. Yeah, a little tougher to get too, but apples to apples, they are hosting or have a server somewhere that has that torrent file in tact that is publicly available to anyone.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Difference

said by knightmb:

said by Matt3:

Yes, but if you take the .torrent site offline, all of Google's links to that .torrent site are immediately invalidated because they don't host the tracker nor the .torrent file. Likewise, taking TPB offline was likely a pretty big blow to ISOHunt, because they don't host a tracker.

A good way to skirt all these issues, would be for a service to index the .torrent files, but not host them. They would link to random, ever changing web hosts that actually host the .torrent files, and then use a service like openbittorrent for the tracker.

The only real thing that will accomplish though is sending the RIAA/MPAA after more users who are part of the swarm. So it would be a mixed blessing.
Not true, as I posted some time ago with a simple cache check, they host the same torrent files as the website provider in their cache. Yeah, a little tougher to get too, but apples to apples, they are hosting or have a server somewhere that has that torrent file in tact that is publicly available to anyone.
I seem to remember there was a problem with your cache link. Would you mind posting it again?
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

gorehound to hopeflicker

Member

to hopeflicker
go on google and do a search and you will find many direct links to files.the files are hosted on RS or other file storage sites as well as blogs,etc.

at this point for me anyways i am boycotting hollywood and mpaa as well as riaa and any artyist/label who signs with them.

let em try and stop torrents cause they never will stop this and i will boycott their ripoff industry and hope others do it too.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Difference

Do you boycott by not watching/listening to their content, of just by not purchasing the content?

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

nixen to Matt3

Premium Member

to Matt3
said by Matt3:

The difference here (from the Pirate Bay) is the following:

1) They don't host the tracker, although they host the .torrent file
2) They haven't blatantly taunted copyright holders

As usual, ISOHunt's attorney doesn't get it. He states there is no difference between ISOHunt and Google, but there is. See #1 above.
So, when GM sells a car to someone that ultimately kills someone with said car, they're culpable in that death?

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Difference

said by nixen:

said by Matt3:

The difference here (from the Pirate Bay) is the following:

1) They don't host the tracker, although they host the .torrent file
2) They haven't blatantly taunted copyright holders

As usual, ISOHunt's attorney doesn't get it. He states there is no difference between ISOHunt and Google, but there is. See #1 above.
So, when GM sells a car to someone that ultimately kills someone with said car, they're culpable in that death?
That doesn't make much sense. A better analogy would be a guy standing on the street corner handing out a list of houses that are easy to rob or have single women who are frequently home alone. You can bet the police would go after him as well as the person who used that information to commit a burglary or to harm someone.

We're talking (generally) civil cases here though, not criminal.

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

nixen

Premium Member

Re: Difference

said by Matt3:

That doesn't make much sense.
In as much as you're going after someone just because they make something available that someone else chooses to do something unlawful with, they are equivalent.
said by Matt3:

A better analogy would be a guy standing on the street corner handing out a list of houses that are easy to rob or have single women who are frequently home alone. You can bet the police would go after him as well as the person who used that information to commit a burglary or to harm someone.
Going after the guy with the info would depend on a number of things: first would be the illegality of providing the information. For example, it's not against the law for me to publish how to make a bomb (though you can be I'd end up on a number of "watch lists" if I did). Unless I'm creating "imminent danger" (to life and limb) by providing that information, there's generally very little they can do against me (criminally).

Pre-9/11, being placed on a watch list would pretty much be the end of it. Given the insanity that's followed, information providers are much more likely to be black-bagged.
said by Matt3:

We're talking (generally) civil cases here though, not criminal.
For which "reason" fairly rarely comes into play.

drew
Radiant
Premium Member
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA

drew

Premium Member

Re: Difference

So go after the drug buyer rather than the drug seller?
banner
Premium Member
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

banner

Premium Member

Shouldn't be too hard to find evidence

Maybe they forgot to associate the tracker with the IP address and infringing file(s) data.

The irony of cracking down on bit torrent is that the MPAA has to abet the infringing of files to figure out who is sharing.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

Pyrric victories for either side

Victory for the MPAA: ISOHunt goes down but is reborn under a new name a la Quebectorrent.

Victory for ISOHunt: You win this legal battle but the MAFIAA keeps lobbying Canadian politicians for more restrictions on torrent activity.

No matter what judgement is given, nobody wins...
nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27

nitzan

Premium Member

Re: Pyrric victories for either side

The lawyers win either way.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

Re: Pyrric victories for either side

They're the only consistency in all of this!
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

FuNNIER STILL ITS HOSTED IN CANADA

so we had the linking to up[held in the p2pnet case
so what mucked pirate bay WONT WORK IN CANADA
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada

munky99999

Member

Original argument.

The original argument isohunt had was that bittorrent the technology should be decided on if it's legal or not.

Just the same with practically all the other technologies.

Take VCR for example. MPAA or whatever was complaining. BOOOHOOO the VCR recording can be used to damage and copyright so it must be ended. Made an illegal technology to sell. Um ya we sure did see where that went.

CDs came out and they cried again. They got a tax put on cd-rs. Regardless of if the media is being used legally or not; or even if it's necessarily their stuff being infringed.

Isohunt was... not sure if they still are? going to just make it so this technology was legal or not.

If they did prove that bittorrent is a legal app and such.

LEts take vcr-cd again. It's all legal... but if someone is running some sort of pirate operation with that sort of thing. Then the RIAA and such can get in there to shut em down.

The issue with bittorrent or the many usenets. They can provide a service and not acknowledge warez existing. Then riaa cant do anything against them.

usenet.com from a month ago only went down because they outright advertised the fact that warez can be accessed.

As for this. PROVE INFRINGEMENT HAPPENED. Well derp de derp. Super easy. Except you suddenly cant use watchdog groups. You also have to get on there to acknowledge someone has fully downloaded and fully uploaded... without being blacklisted. Which means you have to upload yourself.

Catch22? You just made available as the copyrighted owner. Thusly providing the perfect defence against the claim that infringement happened.

Kinda the funny thing with watchdog groups yet so far. Since they dont have to prove infringement happened. All they do is connect to the ip for like 1 second. Just enough to gather info and send out their notices. What did that actually prove? Nothing.

They could have connected to me when I had 0% of the file and I never went above 0%. OR I could be a troll who connects to those torrents with bad data just to cause trouble. Never actually infringed either time.

Now if the watchdog group stays connected long enough to prove someone infringed. They by definition have to admit to and accept the fact that they infringed also. Making them illegal... meaning they get their evidence thrown out; as the data itself has to be wholely infringed. Soon as you open up the ability that there are people or groups who can legally download the warez. That opens up a giant can of worms the mpaa lawyers cant clean up.

Simply make it possible for them to sue. Except there is no statutory damages option. It's UP TO the retail value of the infringement.

PErson X downloaded 24 songs. GUILTY. HEre you go MPAA. You can pay your lawyers $50,000 to earn 24$.

manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX

manfmmd

Premium Member

Re: Original argument.

I've always wanted to setup a honeypot with a few hundred fake movies and a couple thousand fake songs and see where I could take it. I think it would be a fun experiment...sure it would somewhat poison the trackers, and it wouldn't stick around long on sites that allow comments on trackers...but some of that could be countered too by faking comments and by multi-seeding with a group of people in on it all.
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada

munky99999

Member

Re: Original argument.

said by manfmmd:

I've always wanted to setup a honeypot with a few hundred fake movies and a couple thousand fake songs and see where I could take it. I think it would be a fun experiment...sure it would somewhat poison the trackers, and it wouldn't stick around long on sites that allow comments on trackers...but some of that could be countered too by faking comments and by multi-seeding with a group of people in on it all.
Poisoned honey pot. Where the fake movies and fake songs force them to DL fake DRM.

Which all turns out to be rootkits and other assorted malware.

Would be a hilarious troll.

Though a huge waste of time because...

1. They've sent out how many lawsuits? Not many considering the number of people who do pirate.
2. They've sort of said they arent going to do lawsuits anymore.
3. You will infect and hurt innocents.
4. They find out who you are and do background checks before they even goto the ISP to find out who you are. They only target the very very stupid.

manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX

manfmmd

Premium Member

Re: Original argument.

It would never be anything malicious, just empty files full of gibberish. I'd be curious to see how many notices I receive from my ISP..
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to munky99999

Premium Member

to munky99999
the funny thing about the VCR, the MPAA said it would ruin them and instead it set the roots for the most profitable part of their entire business for its entire history. Home Video.

there is a reason that movies came out on video(now DVD) closer and closer to the release in theaters every year, video(DVD now) is far more profitable.
Expand your moderator at work

blank
@comcast.net

blank

Anon

blank

How do they know your downloading a real movie?? Do they download it themselves first?