Slashdot Mirror


Bram Cohen to Release BitTorrent Search Engine

AI Playground writes "Within two weeks, a BitTorrent search engine will be available at BitTorrent.com. From the Wired News article: 'Bram Cohen and a small cadre of developers and entrepreneurs are in the final stage of launching an advertising-supported search engine dedicated to cataloging and indexing the thousands of movies, music tracks, software programs and other files for download over Cohen's popular BitTorrent protocol.'"

420 comments

  1. Google isn't enough! by Palal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not sufficient. I totally agree, release a search engine!

    --
    -Palal
    1. Re:Google isn't enough! by BoldAC · · Score: 1, Informative
    2. Re:Google isn't enough! by ZephyrXero · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google will offer their own version within a month. Start checking torrents.google.com ...lol

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    3. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every time someone points out their favourite BT site on Slashdot, it gets that much closer to being shut down. Then you can pat yourself on the back. SA people should keep this in mind as well.

    4. Re:Google isn't enough! by Nahor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Better search with filetype:torrent

    5. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no registration required. Mods, please check the facts before modding FUD like this up.

    6. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuckin' A. I can't stand how stupid people are sometimes.

    7. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for investigative and prosecutorial branches in the OSS legal community. It might well be self supported from awards and even generate some $ to put in developers pockets.

    8. Re:Google isn't enough! by Emetophobe · · Score: 1
      You have to register with them, though.
      Only if you want to post a comment, you can still download without registering.
    9. Re:Google isn't enough! by tektek · · Score: 1

      Registration is not required at torrentspy~

    10. Re:Google isn't enough! by SCVirus · · Score: 1, Informative
    11. Re:Google isn't enough! by SCVirus · · Score: 0

      You only have to register on torrent spy to post comments.... and torrent spy has more in my personal opinion. Don't believe me? http://torrentspy.com/search.asp?mode=torrentdetai ls&id=303670 theres a torrent from torrent spy (open office), try clicking the download link... you'll notice you DON'T have to register.

    12. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And yet BitTorrent works better the more people there are using it. Oh, bitter irony.

    13. Re:Google isn't enough! by Hank+Chinaski · · Score: 1

      this returns exactly 0 results for me.

      --
      IAAL
    14. Re:Google isn't enough! by Nahor · · Score: 1

      That's normal, there is not keyword to search for in my link.
      I didn't know what you would want to search for, so I couldn't enter it for you.

      Here is one: filetype:torrent sith

    15. Re:Google isn't enough! by SoLO · · Score: 2, Informative
    16. Re:Google isn't enough! by syukton · · Score: 1

      You wrote the drivers but you can't post your comments on the right threads.... makes me wonder about other things you've done involving threads...

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    17. Re:Google isn't enough! by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Damn, still no torrent for Q^22. :(

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    18. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolled by a postbot. Lame indeed.

    19. Re:Google isn't enough! by WhiteBandit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Give me a break. That movie has made $158 million dollars since it opened. BitTorrent had no effect on it.

    20. Re:Google isn't enough! by WhiteBandit · · Score: 1

      Whoops, that came across as rather terse. My apologies!

      Anyway, my initial point was that movie has/will make one hell of a lot of money, whether Bit Torrent exists or not.

      I guess what this ultimately shows is that Bit Torrent only effects sales of sucky/unpopular movies. Hollywood should look into this phenomenon. ;)

    21. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      SA people should keep this in mind as well.
      SA people? I can only think of one large webite with acronym "SA" and all their file trading was stopped as of January 1st.
    22. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, don't hurt torrentspy.

      I need someplace to tune my AdBlock shitlist.

    23. Re:Google isn't enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, posting any links to commercial movies or warez is enough to get a thread gassed and/or the person banned.

    24. Re:Google isn't enough! by syukton · · Score: 1

      I was neither trolled, nor was that a postbot.

      The reply the fellow posted was likely intended to be a response to the story about the Linux 3D Input Driver project: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/ 23/016210&tid=227&tid=222&tid=106&tid=10

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  2. But I Thought BitTorrent was legal!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suprnova.org anyone????

  3. legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all legal stuff i presume?

    1. Re:legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, and I expect Sony, RCA, Hollywood trpes etc to be leaping at the opportunity to advertise this.

      Who in their right mind would wish to sponser/advertise their 'wares' on such a potentially legally dodgy billboard?

    2. Re:legal? by peope · · Score: 1

      Same as all other advertisers. Viaqra and gambling sites.

  4. They're going to name it... by BJH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...BigTarget, sorry I meant BitTarget.

  5. RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by mspohr · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... should give them enough time.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by irving47 · · Score: 4, Funny

      We should start a pool. When do they get their first cease and desist? When do they get shut down for good? When do they go to court... The potential for profit is staggering!

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's like their other releases, it'll be some two-bit lawyer who looks good in front of the cameras, but who's really lip-synching the recordings of other lawyers.

      On the plus side, not only will the lawyer be copy-protected, he'll be forced to an exclusive contract, so we won't have to worry about him shilling for other companies.

    3. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by ZephyrXero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does anyone else wonder what's going on in Bram's head right now? I thought they were trying to legitimize Bit Torrent as a perfectly legal tool for bandwidth sharing....but with the decentralized version and now this it's starting to look more and more just like another File Sharing system, and as the parent said, expect the **AA to have a field day with this...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    4. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm interested to see what is and isn't worthy of a lawsuit. This search engine is now three steps removed from the (assumed) copyright infringement.

      Uploading music from within a country where that is outlawed seems to be fair game for legal action now (although countries where a fee is paid on blank media have a fairly strong case for to say they've already paid) and it's been that way for some time.

      More recently sites like Suprnova and BTefnet, who provide no copyrighted content but do provide information on where to get it in the form of trackers, have been subject to successful legal action.

      This search engine will now provide no copyrighted content. It will not tell users where to get copyrighted content. It will (presumably) tell users where to get information (.torrent files and their associated trackers) on where to get copyrighted content. Is this enough for a case? I'm really not sure it is.

    5. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by bad_outlook · · Score: 4, Funny

      They could get it out faster if they release it as a .torrent

      bo

    6. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2

      Minor nitpick: I think you mean "information on unauthorized copyrighted content". Unless a content creator explicitly enters his work into the public domain, it is copyrighted. However, he may choose to allow for free distribution of his content via a method such as BitTorrent. Examples of this situation abound. (OpenOffice, Mozilla, Star Wars Fan Films, Privateer Remake, OSS OS Distos, etc, etc, etc.) The illegal part only comes in when content is distributed without permission from the content holder.

      Sorry to interrupt. :-)

    7. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by lambent · · Score: 5, Insightful


      A lot of people said this sort of thing when DeCSS hit. To sum up:

      Cat's out of the bag, and ...
      You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      That is ... BitTorrent is either a file-sharing system or it isn't. It obviously is.

      There's nothing anyone can do about it anymore. He's not fooling anyone. Dude obviously needs to eat, and he's making a sponsored search engine. All I can say is "kaching".

    8. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by kirun · · Score: 1

      expect the **AA to have a field day with this...

      Yeah, it'll save them the effort of having to track down all the infringing* sites themselves by hand. They can just enter the top 10 film and music charts, send out the Cease & Desists, and be in the pub by lunchtime.

      *Yes, I know some people will claim the trackers are innocent. Please don't flame me to a crisp over it.

      --
      I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
    9. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by LilGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your comment may be true.. no one IS forcing you to buy the music, but the line that used to seperate WANT from NEED has been blurred beyond recognition. In fact there isn't much of a line like that anymore. Why? Because those who are in control felt it necessary to use advertising that in effect blurred that line out completely. So because some industries felt they needed to blur that line, other industries are eating it because their products can be stolen so easily. Who is going to PAY for something they NEED when its sitting in an open field with no one else around?

      I can't think of a single other explanation as to why things are the way they are right now.

      Just my $.02

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    10. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Dibson · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know yet, but I'm getting the torrent of his brain right now. I'll tell you when it's done downloading.

      --
      -- Why keep us waiting? We are not made of time.
    11. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Does anyone else wonder what's going on in Bram's head right now?

      I'll bet it's something like "I've milked the goth/counterculture starving-artist schtick for all it's worth, now I need to start making money to support my family."

    12. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2

      Its the final step in totaly decentralising bittorrent , giving it massive redundancy .
      You upload your file and let it propagate and if your server ever goes down then no need to fear as you have most likely hundreds if not thousands of people hosting it for you .
      I think its just a logical step ,

      bittorent does not need legitamising ,it is legitamit. The people who try to tell you otherwise are wrong .
      A tool is a tool , you can use a tool set to build weapons or you can use it to help construct a shed .

      They will call it enhancing the ability for copyright infringment , i would call it improving redundancy and functionality .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    13. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Davis+Bacon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude obviously needs to eat, and he's making a sponsored search engine. All I can say is "kaching".

      Is this another damned KDE utility? Don't we already have enough caching utilities?

      -Jam

    14. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's a bad idea... I just think it's not a good time yet. But then again...I guess there might not ever be one...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    15. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting. I don't remember any cases of near fatality from lack of music. If you're dumb enough to let advertising blur that line enough where you believe you need a luxury, you deserve to get shot when the farmer with the shotgun is hanging out on the edge of the field watching you steal his crops. (how's that for analogy-abuse :P )

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    16. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      If the RIAA do try a lawsuit then i hope for the sake of justice that they are thrown out of court instantly.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    17. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by PerlDudeXL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the site probably won't host a single torrent or run a tracker for sharing copyrighted stuff. just an index. you can find torrents via google and the **AA doesn't sue them.

      just my 0.02 EUR.

    18. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if the industry is "dumb enough" to advertise their wares to the point that people feel the have to steal it if they can't afford it, then they deserve to watch their shit get stolen! Reap what you sow.

    19. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Jozer99 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What was that sound?
      Oh, Bram Cohen's plausible deniability flying out a window...

    20. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Unless a content creator explicitly enters his work into the public domain, it is copyrighted.

      There are actually a few other instances in which it's not copyrightable.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    21. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Travelsonic · · Score: 1
      You have no right to music. You have no need to purchase it. You want it, so you have to play by the rules of those who control it. Don't like it? No one is forcing you to buy it

      The problem isn't really as clear cut as you put it, considering you left out music/software that is legally free, like that from independent musicians and freeware/open source software developers.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    22. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by bryce1012 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      you can find torrents via google and the **AA doesn't sue them.
      Yet.
    23. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      There are actually a few other instances in which it's not copyrightable.

      Fair enough. I assume such situations are few and far between? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is that government agencies are not allowed to copyright material. (Although they can mark it top secret, allow a private sector entity to have the copyright, or otherwise restrict content based on national interests.)

      I'm curious, what other instances exist?

    24. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      You said that so eloquently. Very well done.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    25. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it worked out so well for Scientology.

    26. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think what's going through his head is:

      "They wanna call me a thief, I'll *show* them a thief."

      Honestly, they're going to demonize Bittorrent no matter what he does. They control the mainstream media, remember? For instance, take the Star Wars 3 piracy -- every single article I read on that very prominantly mentioned Bittorrent, often several times.

      It doesn't matter that Bittorrent itself is legit, they don't want us even thinking about ways we could possibly subvert their hold on entertainment.

      As for the trackerless system, I think that's a natural evolution of the Bittorrent protocol. The one last, major pain in the ass with Bittorrent is having a tracker die on you -- and trackers DO use up a lot of bandwidth, especailly popular ones. Removing or supplimenting the Tracker with it's own torrent of peers is just common sense.

      The fact that it makes it even harder to shut down sites like lokitorrent is a happy accident.

    27. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, what you're thinking of is likely section 105. It only applies to the federal government, however, and doesn't permit the government to allow other entities to claim a copyright on the government work.

      Related to that are various agency rules that apply for works which aren't government works, but which do involve government funding. And also the due process guarantees of the 14th amendment and various state laws could preclude copyrights on various forms of state laws, rules, caselaw, etc.

      There's also 102(b) of course, for material that's simply outside of the scope of copyright. 102(a) has to be satisfied in order to obtain a copyright. And 103(a), for unlawfully used material in making derivatives. 103 also prevents derivative works with too little additional original matter from being copyrightable. The utility doctrine prevents the functional parts of pictoral, graphic, and sculptural works from being copyrightable, which might include the entire thing if they're inseperable. The merger doctrine prevents copyright from applying where there are only a small number of expressions of an idea available.

      There are likely a couple of other very minor instances in which a work is uncopyrightable, but those are the main ones. And yes, they are fairly uncommon.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    28. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      You do remember who the RIAA and MPAA are, right?
      These guy's would sue the power company for providing the power that ran the computers that ran the software that downloaded the copyrighted content if they felt like it...

      To hell with the near infinite number of non-infringing uses for electricity, without that damn stuff people wouldn't be able to share music online. Even better, those hippie radio stations that broadcast the music for all to listen to without paying wouldn't be able to run either, people would HAVE to buy CDs, and without working CD-writers they couldn't make coppies of them for friends either.

      Damn, I gotta pattent this before the RIAA/MPAA's lawyers come up with it themselves...

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    29. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BitTorrent is either a file-sharing system or it isn't. It obviously is.

      There's nothing anyone can do about it anymore. He's not fooling anyone.

      What the hell kind of crack are you and the parent smoking? Of course it's a file sharing application. Nobody could or would deny that. It's even difficult to think of another name for what it does. The fact that it shares files is a completely uninteresting fact. It's like saying "Oohh that Mac OS X... it's an operating system <GASP>!

    30. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by LFS.Morpheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More recently sites like Suprnova and BTefnet, who provide no copyrighted content but do provide information on where to get it in the form of trackers, have been subject to successful legal action.

      No, they've been subjected to legal blackmail, i.e.,"shut down the site or we'll sue you for $XXX,000." There has not yet even been a lawsuit of copyright infringement against an individual in the US. (IANAL, but at least with respect to "modern" copyright infringement, i.e. sharing via P2P, I believe I am correct.) And until someone significantly rich is threatened with a lawsuit, we probably won't see one.

      Maybe you call this "successful legal action." I call it bullying. Give me your milk money or I'll beat you up.

      --
      The space unintentionally left unblank.
    31. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by sunwolf · · Score: 1

      Actually - said dude is employed by Valve and makes some cash on the side from donations. I can't see why he's taking this path, but it's probably not economic.

    32. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Bram quit Valve and started BitTorrent Inc. He probably has VCs pushing to cash in.

    33. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      You said that so eloquently. Very well done.

      And yet it is still completely retarded. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE ENTERTAINED. Show some self-restraint and say "I'm not going buy OR steal it."

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    34. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about myself per say. Just something I imagined most people that watch a lot of tv and ran out to buy a computer from walmart after hearing about this revolutionary program called napster.

      Maybe everyone isn't so dumb as to be led so much by advertising. But that would be un-american.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    35. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by westlake · · Score: 1
      until someone significantly rich is threatened with a lawsuit, we probably won't see one.

      an uploader who cannot produce a license to distribute is dead in the water.

      the court will find nothing in dispute that warrants a trial of fact and the case will be decided on the record as a matter of law.

      with damages assessed according to a formula that will be more painful than any pre-trial settlement.

    36. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by pAnkRat · · Score: 0

      That would be perfectly OK for me personaly, because I'm not at all interessted in the current top10 movies or music.

      As long as I can get my hands on my favorite series (80 and 90 stuff) and some odd (old) mp3's I'm happy.

      Sharing a movie wich is not released on dvd, but still in the theatres is a crime. (end of story)

      Me sharing an audio cd with some friends is stricktly legal here i Germany, I can't understand why sharing said cd over BT should be an exception of the law.

      --
      we need an "-1 Plain wrong" moderation option!
    37. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      We don't need to legitimize it... we NEED to stop giving so much press time to copyright issues.

      There are far more important issues surrounding efficient use of the internet than the challenges it presents to copyright.

    38. Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. by LFS.Morpheus · · Score: 1

      Oh please, ye of little faith! Innocent until proven guilty, remember. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant really did do all the evil things they said. For instance:
      - If you know anything about the Internet it can be very easy point the blame at the wrong person. I believe I can reference the grandmother that got sued by the RIAA that didn't have any music at all.
      - The people don't necessarily know they're doing wrong, i.e. in the case of the teenager who got sued. Obviously the parents had to be responsible in this case but I think in a court of law some leeway should be granted.

      I also have faith that the ridiculous penalties will be seen to be just that--ridiculous.

      --
      The space unintentionally left unblank.
  6. Death by ZakuSage · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Looks like I'm going to die.... oh well.

    1. Re:Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, free speech isn't a free ride. You can't just say whatever you want without consequences. And if you slander or libel anyone, you should be held accountable.

  7. Advertising Supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long until the records of those advertisers get subpoena'ed by the xxRA?

  8. And in related news.... by Andreas(R) · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Hollywood film studios are to sue people who swap pirated copies of films over the internet. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said the civil suits would seek damages of up to $30,000 (£16,300) per film.

    Doesn't Bram Cohen see this coming?

    1. Re:And in related news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the large amount of legal file swapping that uses BT (etree, linux, etc), wouldn't this have a better chance of surviving the legal onslaught than most?

    2. Re:And in related news.... by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 1

      One can find copyright-encumbered movie, music & software torrents using any major search engine. Yet the MPAA, RIAA & BSA have not filed suit against a single one. Why should Brian Cohen's search engine be any different?

      If anything, this will just make it easier for *AA thugs to hunt down file-sharers.

    3. Re:And in related news.... by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 1

      *cough* Bram Cohen *cough*

    4. Re:And in related news.... by Liam_Whall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it a little perverse that the penalty for making a copy of a physical object is much greater than the penalty for stealing it outright?

    5. Re:And in related news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't Bram Cohen see this coming?

      I'd say, "Yes, he does." With regard to illegal file swapping, this tool will help RIAA carry out its lawsuits. With regard to legal file swapping, this tool will help users find what they are looking for. BT has never been designed to make sharing illegal files safe.

    6. Re:And in related news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find perverse is that people can't seem to tell the difference between downloading a movie (making copy) and uploading a movie (making unlimited numbers of copies). Once you understand those penalties are only applied to uploaders, you'll find things are as perverse as you think.

    7. Re:And in related news.... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      One can find copyright-encumbered movie, music & software torrents using any major search engine. Yet the MPAA, RIAA & BSA have not filed suit against a single one. Why should [Bram Cohen]'s search engine be any different?

      Maybe because Google has its own money and lawyers?

      Mabye because Bram can be made an example to show other people what happens when you try to take software development and innovation into your own hands.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    8. Re:And in related news.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Hollywood film studios are to sue people who swap pirated copies of films over the internet. ... Doesn't Bram Cohen see this coming?

      Seems likely. I don't think Bram Cohen is trying to help anybody share movies nor do I suspect he thinks it's a good idea. The search engine will make it easier for Hollywood to do their lawsuits.

      I'll hypothesize that Bram is sick of his software getting a bad rap and this is a salvo over the bow of those sullying his name. Plus he'll make some money on the ad revenue. Win for Bram and win for legal users - not so much for illegal users.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:And in related news.... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      What I find perverse is that people seem to think that there are no civil and criminal penalties for downloading, when in fact there are.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    10. Re:And in related news.... by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      Yes, contrary to some of the posts here that suggest Cohen is trying to create the next Napster and doing a poor job of it, he has already stated long ago that he has little sympathy for the warez crowd. He even considers them technically foolish as BT lacks anonymity.

      Bittorrent is a great idea and this might make it even better. Those of you who want the latest America's Army or *nix ISO stand up and clap. Those of you with hacked Steam clients that work under cedega, uh... could we talk on IRC?

    11. Re:And in related news.... by P0ldy · · Score: 1

      "Sorry, your honor, but I just spent my last $30,000 on the documentary I've put together on Being Sued by the MPAA(.com). Can you give me a few months to distribute it for a dollar a download via Bittorrent?"

  9. legal? by qolinar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Here come the lawyers.

  10. Slashdot May 24th 2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bram Cohen found beaten to a bloody pulp.

    The mysterious letters 'RIAA' An 'MPAA' were found branded on his still quivering bottom.

    1. Re:Slashdot May 24th 2005 by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I imagine they'll give him an award for making hunting down movies and music much easier.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Slashdot May 24th 2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stuff like this keeps coming up. Seems to be part of the Apple rumour cycle. Can we trust the source??? Using the G5 is par to of the advantage in marketing terms, as a far as i can see: think different!

  11. Wonderful idea by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In two weeks we'll have an updated article on Slashdot informing us that the MPAA have shutdown a new BitTorrent search engine. This sounds like Napster all over again except with legal precedents in place it'll happen much quicker.

    1. Re:Wonderful idea by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sounds like Napster all over again except with legal precedents in place it'll happen much quicker.

      Nonsense. With Napster the problem was that it was a device for exchanging illegal content. The judge found that the small amount of legal content was nothing more than an excuse to allow for illegal wares.

      In the case of BitTorrent, it has a LOT of uses that are perfectly legal. That is what this search engine is targetting. Want the entire Mozilla source tarball? BitTorrent it. Trying to get the latest 180MB release of Privateer Remake? BitTorrent it. OpenOffice, Mozilla, FreeBSD, Linux, America's Army, Doom III demo, Star Wars Fan Films, Star Trek New Missions videos, the list just goes on and on. BitTorrent is a response to the ever growing size of these files more than a method of distributing illegal wares. It just happens to work well for the illegal stuff as well.

      The result is that a judge will no more condemn it than he would condemn the entire Internet.

    2. Re:Wonderful idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're probably right, there are signficant differences between this and Napster.

      With Napster, the central server was critical to the transaction--2 parties that otherwise could not have exchanged information were brought together by the central server. Napster was required to facilitate a transaction that would otherwise not have taken place.

      In this case, it's different. While a search engine makes it easier for a user to find torrents, it's in no way required that the search engine be used for a transaction to take place. No one makes torrents that ONLY work for users coming in through this search engine.

      Consider I post copyrighted information on my web page. Google indexes my web page. Someone finds my web page through google, and then proceeds to download the copyrighted information from me. Is Google liable? Granted, they allowed us to find each other, but they simply made it easier for an exchange to happen--it's certainly possible that my page could be found through other means.

    3. Re:Wonderful idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it is _predictable_ does not make it legitimate. If he worked for Transglobal Conglomerates, the firing would be perfectly legit.

      The proud history of universities is that they are supposed to be places for the sharing of information, not places for censorship. A university is generally considered to be part of a public trust of information, unlike a privately held for profit corporation. The charter of a university is usually not-for-profit and to spread and increase knowledge.

      Good universities have professors who say scandalous things and - if they are well thought out - keep their jobs (usually unless they are personally attacking more senior faculty). By going ahead and getting forced to resign, I believe he did exactly what he intended - proved his university isn't interested in education and doesn't deserve to exist. (Unless of course they come back and remedy it)

      Furthermore it is part of the mandate of a professor to do things like this - they are supposed to be making the world a better place, and they have a burden to that - the same way a doctor is supposed to help people even if they work for a corporation. They have BOTH responsibilities.

    4. Re:Wonderful idea by tanguyr · · Score: 1

      In the case of BitTorrent, it has a LOT of uses that are perfectly legal. That is what this search engine is targetting.

      might i recommend that you read the article?

      But Navin isn't worried -- because the new search engine indexes every torrent it can find without human intervention, the company can't be held liable for results that happen to point to infringing content, he says. Lemley says that's probably right, at least as a matter of law: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides safe harbor for "information location tools" if administrators promptly remove links to infringing content upon notice by the copyright holder.

      Their business model is to make money by displaying advertising on their search results page (hmmm, where have we seen this before?). They couldn't or shouldn't care less about what they index as long as they draw the traffic. In the long run, they might change their attitude due to legal harassment, but the existence of a single authoritative search engine has a lot of benefits for rights holders as well.

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    5. Re:Wonderful idea by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Excepting that everything you say there is conjecture, based on what any random judge will do with any random example set of circumstances.

      The fact is and remains you have no idea what cases and tactics the MPAA will draw on, and have no clue what decisions and legalities a judge could rely upon.

      A judge very well could shut the thing down. Just as easy as I write this sentence. He or she may or may not, but claiming that "a judge will no more condemn it than he would condemn the entire Internet" is a foolhardy statement. Given the opportunity, I'd wager there are judges who would shut down the entire Internet!

    6. Re:Wonderful idea by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      Unless the judge is uninformed and the **AA can put enough negative spin on it to convince him otherwise...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    7. Re:Wonderful idea by rpdillon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Further, as was pointed out in one of the first posts, this would be akin to suing Google for indexing sites that link to (possibly) infringing material. That case has never happened, and if it did, it would set an odd precedent, to say the least.

      I think Bram is going to seek the same protections most search engines enjoy. No doubt if a suit came out, he would argue that he is only linking to files that link to peers. This is no more illegal than the "filetype:torrent" option on Google, and that has never been challenged. It would essentially be akin to outlawing .torrent files.

    8. Re:Wonderful idea by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      might i recommend that you read the article?

      I did. Note how the CEO used "Mozilla" as an example, while Wired blathered on about illegal content.

      Their business model is to make money by displaying advertising on their search results page (hmmm, where have we seen this before?). They couldn't or shouldn't care less about what they index as long as they draw the traffic. In the long run, they might change their attitude due to legal harassment, but the existence of a single authoritative search engine has a lot of benefits for rights holders as well.

      As long as they stay under the "traffic carrier" clauses, they'll be just as safe as any other search engine. Which means that they'll need to spider the torrents via methods similar to those used by Google, Yahoo, Inktomi (stupid bot), and other popular search engines. If they fail to provide an unbiased service that reflects the unbiased nature of the content, then they'll probably be in deep trouble.

      One other thing to remember is that under the carrier status, the original content holder has a right to ask them to remove infringing links. As long as they follow that procedure, they are safe.

    9. Re:Wonderful idea by tanguyr · · Score: 1

      One other thing to remember is that under the carrier status, the original content holder has a right to ask them to remove infringing links. As long as they follow that procedure, they are safe.

      Which is why i mentioned possible legal harassment - basically being bombarded by "un list this torrent" mails. Of course they could do the google thing and link to copies of the complaints on chillingeffects.org. I remember (in a vague and non-url backed way) stories about people receiving automated cease and desist mails for perfectly legal files available on their sites which happened to have names suggestive of copyrighted content...

      If they fail to provide an unbiased service that reflects the unbiased nature of the content, then they'll probably be in deep trouble.

      On the other hand, if they do provide a truly unbiased service we may get (for the first time) some interesting feedback on what percentage of torrents represent legal downloads...

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    10. Re:Wonderful idea by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the other hand, if they do provide a truly unbiased service we may get (for the first time) some interesting feedback on what percentage of torrents represent legal downloads...

      Indeed. Although one has to wonder if it wouldn't become a feedback loop? i.e. As torrents become more accessable, it will probably encourage some types of content creators to use it. Which would only lead to more tools (perhaps a built in Torrent download manager in Mozilla?) which would then encourage even more content. If things do look bleak at first, it may be a very short time before they don't. :-)

    11. Re:Wonderful idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Jobs said he liked the potato chips he was offered during an Intel presentation, and plans to sell the same chips in Apple's cafeteria as well. :-)

    12. Re:Wonderful idea by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### In the case of BitTorrent, it has a LOT of uses that are perfectly legal.

      The problem is that you don't need a special torrent search engine for the legal content, google does fine, you only need one for the illegal content. So unless they are working really hard on blocking all obvious illegal content I don't see how this should survive for more then a few weeks, other torrent indexes have already been targeted for exactly that reason.

    13. Re:Wonderful idea by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Except that google sucks for torrents.

      It's very outdated, for one thing. A torrent search engine could find pages that list torrents and then update them every 15 minutes or so, instead of once a week like google does.

      And if you use filetype:torrent on google, you don't get the page linking to it. Yes, you can check backlinks, but it's a hassle. Whereas a torrent engine could trivially have 'Here's a torrent, and here's the pages listing it'. And it could combine multiple identical torrents into one listing.

      It could also index files listed in torrents, so you could search for filenames.

      And it could check and see if the trackers were still up when it refreshes a page. It could even provide cached copies of the .torrent if the tracker was up but not the file, although that's getting into dangerous territory.

      In fact, a 'torrent' search engine should actually be a 'tracker' search engine in the first place. Obviously it would find trackers via torrents, but the trackers are what's important.

      There's a lot to do with searching torrents that google is not doing, quite possibly on purpose.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    14. Re:Wonderful idea by SCVirus · · Score: 0

      files more than a method of distributing illegal wares.
      thats warez to you.

    15. Re:Wonderful idea by mrogers · · Score: 1

      A small number of legal torrents wouldn't necessarily indicate a small number of legal downloads - it might just mean that legal torrents are more stable than illegal torrents, because there's no need to keep moving the tracker, and no kudos to be earned by creating your own torrent when an "official" torrent is available elsewhere.

    16. Re:Wonderful idea by toad3k · · Score: 1

      It could also have information on number of seeders/leechers, by using the protocol to connect to the torrent. I think.

      The one thing I'm worried about is that the quality of torrents will be low. How can you be sure that a torrent is legit/worth downloading if people throw trackerless torrents filled with ads around all day or compressed passworded archives, etc.

      I'm interested to see what sort of rating system they have to decide which ones are the real deal.

    17. Re:Wonderful idea by m50d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All napster did was index people's MP3s and link to the ones people were sharing. Didn't stop them being sued into the ground

      --
      I am trolling
    18. Re:Wonderful idea by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      The big difference between Google and BitTorrent (the company, that is, not the protocol) is literally that, though - a BIG difference. Google has several thousand employees; BitTorrent has five, from what I gather. In other words, if Google was sued, then there'd actually be a long trial of several years in which both sides spend enormous amounts of money on their respective groups of lawyers, and it certainly would not be clear that the ruling would be in favour of the *AA, to say the least. With BitTorrent, it's quite different.

      Not that I necessarily think that it's likely that there will be a lawsuit, but I don't think you can compare BT to Google really. In an ideal world, you'd be correct, but we're really very, VERY far away from that.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    19. Re:Wonderful idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur. I had to download Microsoft's Xbox 360 E3 videos a day after they were released using a torrent on a different site. The official site could barely spit out 15k/s. And this is Microsoft we're talking about. If they can't keep up demand, who can? There plenty of practical BitTorrent uses.

    20. Re:Wonderful idea by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. The reason they were sued is because they stored some of the actual data on their own servers.

    21. Re:Wonderful idea by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      That would be because
      A) that's ALL that it did
      B) they wrote and distributed software that automated the process

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    22. Re:Wonderful idea by tanguyr · · Score: 1

      If this is true - and it sounds reasonable - then the net effect may well be to make BitTorrent look worse than it really is from a content owners point of view. I can see us all explaining (and re-re-re-explaining) the difference between trackers and downloads. Could well become the next slashdot meme.

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
  12. Sue Me Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only reason he hasn't been sued yet is because BitTorrent is a protocol. Now that this guy has a search engine going, he has painted a huge target on his head. Only a matter of time now...

    1. Re:Sue Me Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005."

      Yes but he predicts so much crap of course he'll be right eventually.

    2. Re:Sue Me Please by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      This is what I brought up in the last Bittorrent article. Now that the client also handles tracking, it's putting a bulls-eye on Bittorrent itself when the bulls-eye was originally on the illegal trackers.

      Now that it's going to have torrent search, that chest size bulls-eye is now a bomb size one. It won't be long before the AA's Come knocking on Cohen's door with a CAD or a Lawsuit now.

    3. Re:Sue Me Please by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Yes, because all the major search engines (Google, Yahoo, MSN, AskJeeves and what-not) have all been sued already - and *successfully* sued, too, for that matter.

      You do have an interesting point, but just what *does* make you think that a search engine is certain to get sued? The personal impression that I have so far is that the RIAA/MPAA/... are mostly targeting people who they will not actually HAVE to sue because those people know they will not be able to afford a lawsuit no matter what the outcome - people like grandmothers, college student, 10-year olds and the like. (1) It's as good as an actual lawsuit won for the purpose of deterring someone who wonders whether they should try to download the latest hollywood release, but they don't have to prove anything - not even that there actually was any crime committed.

      Of course, sometimes, it may seem (or be) a better overall option (from the *AA perspective) to go after a more high-level target instead, which is why Grokster has been sued, for example. But in those cases, it always seems to be a central point of the *AA that the technology in question either was designed specifically for the purpose of copyright infringement or that it's not actually used for anything else (and that the company sued thus indirectly makes money off of copyright infringement). In the case of BitTorrent, that probably wouldn't work, as it was designed for other things and definitely *is* being used for them, too. (Look up "SNIU" some time.)

      1. (On a side note, why is it that in the self-proclaimed "land of the free", you cannot even fight a frivolous lawsuit when you're poor?)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    4. Re:Sue Me Please by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Well, instead, the **AA's can use this as a tool themselves. In effect, to extend your analogy a bit, use his search tool as a gunsight.

      Which should have a lot of 'underground piratez' types a bit worried.

    5. Re:Sue Me Please by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Now that this guy has a search engine going, he has painted a huge target on his head. Only a matter of time now..."

      Search engines are illegal? man then google is screwed.

      Otherwise we are back to the arguement of something is not bad because it can be used to do bad things...

      Besides, wouldn't his search engine be analogous to just using google to search for .tor files?

  13. Oh good going bram by Progoth · · Score: 1

    At a reporter's request, Navin ran "The Interpreter" through the search engine, and the top result was an illicit copy of the Nicole Kidman film -- still in theaters -- offered on The Pirate Bay

    way to open yourself up to legal liabilities

    1. Re:Oh good going bram by SCVirus · · Score: 0

      And guess what if you search for Open Office, you'll get legally distrobutable software, who'd u' thunk it?

  14. As cool as this might be... by Marnhinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As nice as this might be, to be able to simply search various torrents, I have a feeling that this will not do anything to enhance Bittorrent's image with the media. If anything, they will use it as a tool to show that people "pirate" tons of stuff over BT. (As mentioned in the article - when the "reporter" requests a search done for The Interpeter.)

    It's a good idea, and probably going to be a nice piece of software... but right now is probably about the worst time you can release something like this.

    --
    There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
    1. Re:As cool as this might be... by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      Enhance BT's image?? I think it's safe to assume by now that Bram Cohen doesn't give a fuck about whether BT is used for legal purposes or not. As long as more people get to use it, he recieves more donations, so the more the merrier, whatever the purpose.

      And yes, that's a real shame. The original concept of using BT as a legitimate load balancing method was good, but nowadays it's unfeasible since BT is being constantly labeled as a piracy application, and therefore many places block it and because they think it is strictly designed for illegal purposes. I've heard more than once from people fighting with their school campuses' IT so they can get BT access to download Linux ISOs or trailers from Blizzard, but in the end having BT access would dramatically increase piracy so they keep it closed.

      But hell, maybe that was just a cover, and Bram was really aiming at piracy purposes afterall.

    2. Re:As cool as this might be... by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      I've heard more than once from people fighting with their school campuses' IT so they can get BT access to download Linux ISOs or trailers from Blizzard,

      Their time would be better spent getting someone in charge on the campus network to allow local caching of Linux ISOs, legal trailers, etc. The IT staff can and should be pleased to reduce expensive external traffic.

      Although this tends to let the air out of the arguement of the people who 'claim' that torrent should be unconditionally allowed because they only have 'legitimate' uses in mind.

  15. Nice Troll, Wired News by Teckla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...dedicated to cataloging and indexing the thousands of movies, music tracks, software programs and other files for download..."

    Wow, way to troll, Wired "News".

    1. Re:Nice Troll, Wired News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't get it. Why should talking about P2P networks be considered illegal, and why was he forbidden in the first place? Of course, after being forbidden once, he should have fought with the authorities and argued his case until he got permission, not ignored them and gone on to speak.

    2. Re:Nice Troll, Wired News by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh so they're not wrong?

      I guarantee you that if they start indexing major tracker sites, the majority of what you will see will be exactly that.

      Wow, way to point out the obvious Wired News.

    3. Re:Nice Troll, Wired News by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is stating the obvious truth considered trolling now? What should it have said? "Cataloging and indexing the thousands of movie trailers, free indie music tracks, and software demos and other files for download..." more to your liking?

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    4. Re:Nice Troll, Wired News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yet again a slashdoter yells "TROLL!" when someone tells the truth.

    5. Re:Nice Troll, Wired News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, way to troll, Teckla - I even gave you a well-deserved -1 troll mod point. ;)

    6. Re:Nice Troll, Wired News by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "Is stating the obvious truth considered trolling now?"
      The obvious truth? They claim that the site is dedicated to indexing illegal stuff as well as other files. What if the main purpose is to search for legal stuff? Hasn't Bram Cohen repeatedly expressed concerns that BT is being used for illegal stuff?
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  16. Already been done? by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative
    First, a printer friendly page

    Second: Torrentsearch.us
    this site already indexes torrents and even has an option to search multiple torrent sites @ once. (beware the enormous java ad)

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Already been done? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      what the heck are you talking about?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Already been done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's been crap-flooding slashdot with anonymous random posts taken from other stories. There must be about a hundred in every story at this point. Why the lazy fucking editors haven't banned him yet is beyond me.

  17. Already exists? by anethema · · Score: 0, Redundant

    www.isohunt.com already indexes an assload of sites and is ad-supported. It is my primary site of this sort.

    Also, isnt it kind of stupid for bram to release something like this? Kind of really makes the bittorrent look even more like it is used mostly for illegal things. Not like it matters, just a tool, etc. But the MPAA might take notice and use it for more propaganda fuel.

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    1. Re:Already exists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could someone host his p2p lecture as worldwide video conferencing thing? I quite interested in what it all was about

      Relase it via bittorrent. Nothing like using a P2P network to prove the point.

  18. torrent searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Right now I use ISOhunt and Bitoogle.

    Any other good ones out there?

    1. Re:torrent searches by toad3k · · Score: 1

      Wow I did not know about that site, I had been having trouble downloading my weekly dose of naruto because my isp banned the isp the tracker is hosted on (for spam related offenses).

      Thank you!

    2. Re:torrent searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please avoid Bitoogle due to their big FU to blind users. They disallow blind people from using their site just as Slashdot now disallows the blind from posting as AC's. I work at a school for the blind, and while I've only received a few complaints about Bitoogle, I think I've received three dozen complaints about Slashdot's new abuse practise.

      To Taco: please reconsider your hatred of the blind. Did some blind girl dump you? Why do you hate them so?

    3. Re:torrent searches by russint · · Score: 1
      --
      ^^
  19. I wonder by datadriven · · Score: 4, Funny

    if the RIAA & the MPAA would be interested in buy ad space?

    1. Re:I wonder by Loonacy · · Score: 1

      I can see it now... The RIAA and MPAA sponsor ads saying "You're computer has been hacked! We know you've been illegally downloading files and we're going to be knocking on your door any minute now!"
      Scare off anyone who wants to download files.

  20. How's he dealing with the legal issues? by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's brought down the other Bittorrent torrent providing sites is the lawsuits challenging their legality - will Mr. Cohen be filtering out such movies/music/books/etc which violate someone's intellectual property (such as "Star Wars"), or does he have some legal angle that will make him immune?

    IANAL (which for years I thought means "I am ANAL", but that's neither here nor there), but Usenet folks can get away with downloading since downloading copyrighted material is not technically illegal - but uploading, or, probably more accurately, distributing copyrighted material without the consent of the intellectual property owner is. So Usenet folks can download Episode III (though why they would is beyond my ken) without fear of lawsuits, but Bittorrent folks, from the second they activate the torrent and upload a packet to someone else, can be considered a distributer under the eyes of the law.

    Which is why web sites such as Suprnova.org are now out of business - MPAA came a callin' with their trucks full o' lawyers claiming that giving people access and hosting torrent files is itself a violation of copyright distribution. I guess if Mr. Cohen doesn't host the files himself but merely links to where the files may be found, he could wiggle through that legal loophole.

    Either way, good luck - I see a lot of good use for Bittorrent as a method of distributing large files for the masses such as Podcasts or the eventual Video Podcasts that are now popping up, perhaps even as a way to protect against slashdotting (just build bittorrent into web servers and form "unions" to spread the bandwidth or something like this), but I'm not so confident that such as business venture will work out without some legal challenges (whether appropriate or merely standard M/R/IAA "death by lawsuit" tactics).

    1. Re:How's he dealing with the legal issues? by fulana_lover · · Score: 2, Funny

      IANAL (which for years I thought means "I am ANAL", but that's neither here nor there)

      For all the IANAL lovers, you can download lots of it on the new search engine. Even DP! (which I always thought was Divorce Proceedings)

    2. Re:How's he dealing with the legal issues? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's going to be in the US, I would hope that they've been extremely careful to comply with all the relevant provisions of 17 USC 512.

      Usenet folks can get away with downloading since downloading copyrighted material is not technically illegal

      Yes it is. See 17 USC 501 and 106(1) for the statutory law, and cases such as Napster for the caselaw.

      I guess if Mr. Cohen doesn't host the files himself but merely links to where the files may be found, he could wiggle through that legal loophole.

      No, that would still be contributory infringement. Hence the need for the 512 safe harbor. Remember, Napster didn't host files either, but just helped downloaders find uploaders.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    3. Re:How's he dealing with the legal issues? by bsgk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's interesting to think of it this way. It is almost giving the legal groups a direct way to find the tracker and attack the distributer. Maybe over time this will cause the illegal trackers to disappear and Bram will have a protocol used for legit, commercial and non-profit reasons.

    4. Re:How's he dealing with the legal issues? by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      By the way, downloading absolutely IS a infringement of copyright. It is simply easier to seek astronomical damages if you sue an uploader.

    5. Re:How's he dealing with the legal issues? by SCVirus · · Score: 0

      Intresting, so your saying the copy of Episode 3 that I am acually downloading right now off alt.binaries.movies.abunchofothercrap is legal, but the DVD-Rip of team america world police I'm downloading through bittorrent is illegal? Well, then, thank god my ISP provides free, uncensored, fast as fuck usenet access.

  21. What does this mean for the RIAA/MPAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the implications for copyright infringers could be huge, no more security through obscurity. All the lawyers have to do is a quick search and instantly have IP's for every infringement currently in use...

    Great news for the legitimates however!

  22. Next Napster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So is this going to search the distributed DB or just a bunch of different trackers? I should hope its not the first since that would give the RIAA/MPAA/etc a door into finding "illegal" file swappers.

    I like things how they are, ask you friends, or try torrentsearch.us...

    1. Re:Next Napster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other question is when are you actually using GPL code?
      If you look at a piece of FOSS and then write a program that is similar is that a violation of the GPL?
      If you do not cut and paste the code is it okay? How much code can you cut and paste before you are under the GPL. If I look at DBM an decide I want to use the hash function as a small part of closed source or even a BSD program will I be in Violation if I.
      a. Cut and paste the one function into my code.
      b. Type in the function by hand.
      c. Re write the function using different identifiers.
      e. convert it to a different language like Pascal, ADA, perl, python, or java?

      Be careful how strict you want it to be. Remember the laws that effect the GPL also effect closed source as well. Too strict and you could effectively make every programmer a slave to what ever project they have worked on in the past. You could make it totally illegal for someone that worked on a GPL program from working on a BSD project. Or anyone that ever worked on a closed source project from ever working on an OSS project.

    2. Re:Next Napster by SCVirus · · Score: 0

      Neither its going to spider then internet, mostly the other torrent indexing websites, and give you the torrents in a most likely ad-supported way.

  23. Kevin Poulsen of the Watchman book? by Vamphyri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is the author of that article the same Kevin Poulsen as the Pac-Bell phreaker in the Watchman book?

    1. Re:Kevin Poulsen of the Watchman book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. He's been a writer for Security Focus for quite a while.

    2. Re:Kevin Poulsen of the Watchman book? by phishst1k · · Score: 1

      His name...is Kevin...Poulsen, His name is Kevin Poulsen...__HIS NAME IS KEVIN POULSEN__

      --
      Sex is not the answer. Sex is the question. Yes is the answer.
  24. .Torrent distribution via Usenet? by costas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has anybody tried/implemented distributing .torrents (not the payload, the .torrent file itself) over Usenet? It seems that with trackerless torrents, Usenet would be the perfect distribution medium for the torrents themselves, just as decentralized as BitTorrent itelf... TorreNTSP so to speak...

    1. Re:.Torrent distribution via Usenet? by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1

      BitTorrent still needs to contact the tracker to find out which peers have the file.

    2. Re:.Torrent distribution via Usenet? by Ninwa · · Score: 1
    3. Re:.Torrent distribution via Usenet? by VargrX · · Score: 1
      so sayeth costas:
      Has anybody tried/implemented distributing .torrents (not the payload, the .torrent file itself) over Usenet?


      It's already been done, but no-one that I know on usenet really uses it - when I do see them, in a high-traffic group, they end up being lost in the noise, probably due to the small size of the torrent itself. .torrent files would more than likely survive usenet better in a 'lower' traffic group that's seen by more ntp servers.

      they might be able to survive the higher traffic groups (the dvd groups come to mind, along with the anime one's), if the moron's that are coming in from ef-net would just leave, and stop crap-flooding all the more 'popular' groups.

      --
      Sometimes people just have to learn and adapt to change, it is one of the requirements of being a living thing.
    4. Re:.Torrent distribution via Usenet? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's doable, but the crowd using bittorrent for copyright infringment are a bunch of neophiles who won't use any "old tech", kind of like bloggers really. They ignore gnutella, good luck getting them to pay attention to usenet.

      --
      I am trolling
    5. Re:.Torrent distribution via Usenet? by Eric+S+Raymond · · Score: 1

      what about creating an alt.binaries.torrents?

      Also, does anyone know why I have to type letters now to confirm I'm not a script?

      --
      Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
  25. Sinking feeling by Leviathant · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm getting the same sinking feeling reading this news that I got when I first read about my.mp3.com ... something that worked decently enough hastily steps too far into the wrong territory, and suddenly gets sued into nonexistance.

    I don't know how it will be justified yet, but it seems like this is exactly what needs to be done to get the lawsuit ball rolling.

    --
    I am Leviathant and I approve this message.
  26. How is this different than other sites? by Yenhsrav_Keviv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can someone explain how this will differ from sites such as suprnova (etc)?

    1. Re:How is this different than other sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      SuprNova and other tracker sites host torrent files that moderators or users upload and post. Presumably, this project would work like a search engine crawler. A series of robots would comb the internet for sites hosting torrent files and create a site with such indices. When a user enters a search, the program searches the index for sites or nodes that have such files, and locate the file, then pull up the indexed metadata for the user. If the user wants to connect to download said file, the program locates the torrent, parses the data, and attempts to join in the download.

      If this type of program is illegal, then surely search programs deployed by Copernic or Lexis-Nexis are in the same boat.

  27. This should be interesting to watch unfold... by the_macman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This should provide a good show to watch. I'm all in favor of Bram Cohen winning but he will definately face some fierce resistance and he knows. I'm sure they've had meetings about how they're gonna beat this. From TFA

    This creates something that BitTorrent has until now lacked, which is a centralized node to target....But Navin isn't worried -- because the new search engine indexes every torrent it can find without human intervention, the company can't be held liable for results that happen to point to infringing content, he says. Lemley says that's probably right, at least as a matter of law: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides safe harbor for "information location tools" if administrators promptly remove links to infringing content upon notice by the copyright holder."

    Also doe anyone have any technical details on how this works. I mean how do you index a torrent automatically. i.e. If I start a torrent how will the search enginer know?

    1. Re:This should be interesting to watch unfold... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful
      BitTorrent doesn't need a centralized node to target.

      For example, if I want to download the latest slackware distro via BitTorrent, I grab the torrent file from slackware.com, and can go knock myself out.

      The same applies for any other torrent files... just download them from the source. If the thing is truly freely redistributable, finding that source should be fairly simple... probably can even be done with google if one is genuinely unsure.

    2. Re:This should be interesting to watch unfold... by endx7 · · Score: 1

      Well, you can tell google to give you .torrent files. Of course, google doesn't understand the contents of a .torrent file, so thus it really isn't a torrent, or it's just matching by filename...which is probably good enough.

      For example, a search for "linux": http://www.google.com/search?&q=filetype%3Atorrent +linux

    3. Re:This should be interesting to watch unfold... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      BitTorrent doesn't need a centralized node to target. For example, if I want to download the latest slackware distro via BitTorrent, I grab the torrent file from slackware.com, and can go knock myself out.

      Counterexamples...

      Breaking News: an asteroid just hit Linden Utah.
      I would like to find various video blog footage of it. What central site should I go to? Simple solution: use a torrent search engine.

      I know that the soon-to-released movie "Resturant at the End of the Universe" now has a teaser out. The teaser can be downloaded, vit. BitTorrent, from some official site -- no copyright infringement involved. But WHERE do I get the torrent from? I could use Google and go searching for this particular movie, and its official site. But suppose I could just go straight to a torrent search engine?


      I grab the torrent file from slackware.com, and can go knock myself out.

      During a lengthy download, I do something else to myself rather than knocking myself out. Presumably I would be finished and back to the computer before you reawaken from your unconcious state.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    4. Re:This should be interesting to watch unfold... by two_ply · · Score: 1
      The *IAAs have proved in the past that they're not above using scripts to send out their warnings... not to give them any ideas, but why not just whip up a script to grab results from this search engine (through screen scraping, or whatever), run the results through reg-exs of their 'IP', and crapflood the service with takedown notices for everything that matches?

      After that all they have to do is wait for a .torrent link to 'fall through the cracks', and the service is open for a lawsuit, n'est pas ?

      I'm sure their lawyers wouldn't object to arguing how prompt 'promtly' means at $200+ an hour... do Bram's lawyers feel the same way ?

    5. Re:This should be interesting to watch unfold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they'll use a web spider.

  28. It's already live! by Deaper · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can wait two weeks for them to link it on the homepage or you can search now at search.bittorrent.com

    1. Re:It's already live! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put in "sith," for example, and you'll see links to known "illegal" torrent sites, like Pirate Bay.

      One nice thing about his search site is that it allows you to easily copy/paste the URL at the top with the search strings. Lots of the other engines don't let you (easily) do that.

    2. Re:It's already live! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      search.bittorrent.com SUCKS compared to ISOhunt.

    3. Re:It's already live! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong section. That's about distributing more binaries, read the section of the license about distributing source. You either bundle it, or provide it to everyone.

    4. Re:It's already live! by Sithgunner · · Score: 1

      I think linking from here sorta made everyone force to wait for 2 weeks...

  29. rrororoororo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rorr

  30. Why is a torrent search engine required? by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you know what torrent you are looking for, and the torrent is legally redistributable, you should probably also know where to download the torrent file from. Although one might say that a torrent search engine has legal uses, that argument is somewhat specious, IMO.

    1. Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Imagine I hear about a new video demo for Quake4. Without searching for the torrent, how am I supposed to "know" where it is?

      Or maybe I'm just curious if there's a demo available for UT2004. How do I find if there's a torrent without looking for it?

      Then again, maybe your intuition is a little better than the rest of us. Or maybe you've managed to download Google directly do your brain.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Try the website of the company that produces the content you are searching for in the first place. If it's not affiliated with any particular company, there are a plethora of sites that track legally distributable torrent-based content that you can find with google in about 10 seconds.

    3. Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? by rpdillon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you know what webiste you are looking for, and the website is legally viewable, you should probably also know where to view the website from. Although one might say that a website search engine has legal uses, that argument is somewhat specious, IMO.

      Wait, what?

    4. Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try the website of the company that produces the content you are searching for in the first place.

      Perhaps they only offer an FTP download, and you don't want to wait all night. Or perhaps they're slashdotted. Or perhaps they have the standard crappy flash-based "guess what bit you're supposed to click on next" system that most promotional sites have these days, and you can't find the download section. Or perhaps, as you go on to say, there isn't an obvious source.

      Search engines are useful when you're searching for something.

      If it's not affiliated with any particular company, there are a plethora of sites that track legally distributable torrent-based content that you can find with google in about 10 seconds.

      So... uh... kind of like a torrent search engine, only less convenient because you have to perform several searches? (First google for the sites, then try to use their usually-crappy on-site search systems to find what you're looking for.)

      Thanks, but it sounds to me like a torrent search engine could be pretty damn useful.

    5. Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Thanks for proving my point. Using a search engine to find torrents IS a great idea.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    6. Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      I never said it wasn't.

      I said I saw no point to a search engine specifically for torrent files.

      Adding searching to BitTorrent itself will only end up with the MPAA et`al on its back a heck of a lot faster. BitTorrent may have legal uses, but adding search capability into it will increase its illegal use by orders of magnitude, decreasing the overall share (percentage-wise) of legitimate uses.

    7. Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      "I never said it wasn't."

      Mmm... then what DID you say? "If you know what torrent you are looking for, and the torrent is legally redistributable, you should probably also know where to download the torrent file from."

      In other words, if you want a torrent, you're supposed to simply intuit its location without any help from a search engine. You're simply supposed to "know" where they are.

      But, ever mind. I think you're right. Searching for what you specifically want is asinine. Google should also get rid of its map only search, its image only search, its text search, and its newgroup search.

      We shouldn't be able to search for email, in folders, and in documents on our computers.

      We should have generic searches with no specificity. That'd make life SO much easier.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    8. Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner. You know how Apple has its "It just works" ad campaign? Well, Google could do something similar:

      "You just know."

      I can hear the voice over now, "Why waste time finding information online, when you can just know where it is."

      If I were Google I'd grab intuit.google.com and youjustknow.com RIGHT now.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  31. Search != Napster by asv108 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I've noticed quite a few posts already mentioning napster and that the RIAA would shut this down, but based on what law? A search engine specializing in torrents is completely different then a centralized P2P file sharing network(Napster) or the common torrent portal.

    The MPAA has maneuvered to get some torrent sites pulled offline, almost all of the sites are places where users publish content to the site manually.(PUSH) A search engine pulling content from existing locations (PULL) is a completely different type of system.

    1. Re:Search != Napster by m50d · · Score: 1

      All the downloading in napster was peer-to-peer. (IIRC it was a straight http download by the reciever) The only thing centrallised was the search database and engine. Which seems exactly what this is going to be.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Search != Napster by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Because aside from direct infringement, there are also doctrines of contributory and vicarious infringement. Under these doctrines, in the right circumstances, assisting someone to infringe results in liability for not just the actual infringer, but also those who helped.

      That's how Napster was taken down -- they helped their users infringe. There are ways to avoid danger (see e.g. 17 USC 512) but you need to be careful in order to take advantage of them.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    3. Re:Search != Napster by gedanken · · Score: 1

      You are completely right. Unfortunately this does not put mr Cohen in the clear. Remember that college kid who got sued by the RIAA for writing a program that would search LANs for computers sharing music? RIAA saw it as being just as damaging as something like Napster.

  32. In the future you'll be able to torrent your brain by loggia · · Score: 3, Funny

    I predict.

  33. Actualy ... by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1

    I would have expected the MPAA to be one of the most frequent users of a bittorrent search service.

    --
    James P. Barrett
  34. Categorized results? by Nytewynd · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if they are going to make it super easy for the FBI, and just let them type in "Illegal Downloads". The only saving grace is that the list will be so long it will probably freeze up the FBIs network.

    A search engine is a decent idea, but if you can't find your files already, you aren't doing something right. I'm not sure BitTorrent is the kind of thing that should be catering to the dumb computer user. Part of the reason it hasn't been locked down totally is because the masses haven't figured it out. Make it as easy to use as Napster, and it will be shutdown as fast as possible.

    --
    /. ++
    1. Re:Categorized results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, at the very least installation of the client should require a kernel recompile by including a bogus yet new kernel module that needs to be staticlly linked in each new version.

      Wait, that will only piss off the elite.

    2. Re:Categorized results? by Serious+Seth · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you can't shut down a protocol. You can, however, sue any user implementing that protocol to infringe on copyright. I think my odds for not getting sued go up (as do the transfer speeds) when "the masses" join in, just as gazelles feel safer in a herd.

  35. Poor little MPAA... by techstar25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article...The MPAA slammed BitTorrent last week for accelerating the spread of a pirated copy of Revenge of the Sith -- a leaked studio workprint of the third Star Wars prequel debuted online even as fans queued up for Thursday's theatrical release. The organization had no immediate comment on the upcoming search service Friday.

    I don't think anybody feels sorry for the MPAA. The fact that they had the balls to use "Sith" as an example was both moronic and ironic. I mean, Sith went on to have the 2nd most profitable opening EVER. How do they have the balls to keep making these claims that bittorrent is hurting them?

    1. Re:Poor little MPAA... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Because they can counter that argument by claiming that if it weren't for the piracy, they'd have made even more money.

      Forgetting the money and success for a moment though, this is a clear-cut case of copyright infringement. That's illegal whether there's any monetary gain (or loss) or not.

  36. hurting the image (even more) by torrents · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if said engine displayed the torrents with the highest amount of seeds that it was tracking... i have a feeling they wouldn't all be linux iso images but you'd be more likely to have the mpaa interested if joe sixpack can get the new starwars movie without too much difficulty, and with loads of help from the creator of the protocol...

    if this is a quick cash grab on brams part i hope he's considered how quickly legal fees can kill even the most profitable business...

    --
    Get your torrents...
  37. Double edged sword? by ashayh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Won't this also make it easier for MPAA/RIAA to write custom programs to hunt down torrents and trackers ? Make it easier to send their armies of lawyers behind those pillagers and rapists on the high seas?

    Or instead they could invest in good stories, believable plots, decent actors, cheaper popcorn, to attract people in cinemas.

    Who am I kidding.

    I just saw XXX-2 and my brain is still recuperating.

  38. Ok... by LilGuy · · Score: 1, Redundant

    This guy either has some really large juevos or he's incredibly dim. This seems like a very poor idea at times like these when the MPAA and RIAA are going after every torrent site that exists.

    Or maybe I don't understand enough legal mumbo-jumbo to point that out...

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  39. RIAA/MPAA by WCityMike · · Score: 3, Funny

    RIAA and MPAA jointly going apeshit in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...

    1. Re:RIAA/MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this for a summary ...

      Rich points out that many of the key members of the key IETF working groups also sit on the board of SIPfoundry.

      The rest is just a bit of marketing speak - basically an advert with some generalised statements about where SIP is going and why SIPfoundry is better than Asterisk.

      El-Reg put it down to a conflict between a standards group (SIPfoundry) and a "fleet-footed" application development group (Asterisk) ... as we've all seen the standards always win over the latest bells and whistles!

      Oh, wait! ...


    2. Re:RIAA/MPAA by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      RIAA doesn't really care, because bittorrent is mostly used for albumns and the RIAA haven't had any artists who could press a decent whole albumn in 50 years....

  40. mod parent up by 0kComputer · · Score: 1

    I was just thinking the same thing. How is this any different from what Napster did?

    --
    Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
    10.
    1. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would be nice if there was an open source alternative to skype that got major backing by some big players... let's hope this is it! (not that skype isn't good, it's great... but competition is even greater)

  41. Wrong article dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was last week.

  42. Does anyone see the irony here? by hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As contradictory to the "Cause" as this may seem, doesn't anyone see that Bram is probably doing this because the RIAA/MPAA and other major industries are blaming his project, a project that produces a protocol, for the rampant copyright infringement on the Internet?

    The irony here in recent news is that the RIAA/MPAA are directly blaming BitTorrent for the Star Wars EP3 leak, but its been repeatedly shown that the leaked copy came from inside, and was released before the movie hit the public.

    ...and somehow BitTorrent is to blame?

    Are we blaming Boeing for the 9/11 tragedy too? Or blaming Kabar for making high-quality blades, because someone killed with one?

    This is ridiculous, and I personally applaud Bram's efforts here to absolutely saturate the mainstream media and dark corners of the Internet with as much media as possible, using his legitimate tool. I personally don't care for any of the copyrighted dreck on television or the radio these days, but others might.

    Also, whenever you can, please keep correcting people who regard this as "piracy", "stealing" or "theft". It is nothing of the sort. It is "copyright infringement", plain and simple. If I "steal" your bicycle, I have deprived you of something you previously owned, which I now posess. Making digitally-perfect copies of a work is not "stealing" or "theft", though it is very much illegal in most countries.

    You can't steal profits that weren't already earned. You can't steal "projected" profits. Keep up the pressure on these companies who continue to misunderstand the terms they're spewing in public. There's a certain Heinekin commercial that is grossly misrepresenting the nature of copyright infringement.

    I corrected a Wall Street Journal reporter for a front-page article in the Marketplace section of the dead-tree version for promoting the "sharing of music" by burning copies of music and handing it out.

    He wrote a story that included how some woman (which he named), was bored with the looping music playing in her resort in the Caribbean islands and decided to use her laptop, complete with burner, to burn several CDs of her favorite music to give to the resort to play instead. He was promoting the "advance of technology" for "enabling" people to do these things. This is disgusting.

    THIS is where we need to start directing our angst... at the mainstream media misrepresenting these technologies.

    1. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      ...and somehow BitTorrent is to blame?

      Get used to it kid - that's how the govt operates when up against the wall (constituents clamoring for them to do something). Example: glass in certain shapes is illegal, in the name of the war on drugs. Yes, sometimes they do throw out the baby with the bathwater.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    2. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't steal profits that weren't already earned. You can't steal "projected" profits.

      And even if, as the content industries would like us to do, we considered it "stealing projected profits" when someone discourages others from buying copies of a CD or movie (which is the only way illegal copying can affect profits at all), what would that do to the First Amendment?

      When Roger Ebert or any other reviewer publishes a negative write-up of a movie, that must have more effect on ticket sales than any single person sharing the movie through P2P. Imagine if RottenTomatoes got hit as hard as these tracker sites have been lately because of all the potential profits they stole.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      The irony here in recent news is that the RIAA/MPAA are directly blaming BitTorrent for the Star Wars EP3 leak, but its been repeatedly shown that the leaked copy came from inside, and was released before the movie hit the public.

      The initial file came from inside, but widespread distribution was only possible with such tools as BitTorrent.

      Of course they are wrong, but they will grasp onto anything they can. The main thing they don't seem to get is the difference between BitTorrent and P2P things like Napster. They see no difference. So they rail against BitTorrent as well.

      Building a search engine for it will result in far more heat, because they will be able to show masses of copyrighted files available via that tool. Ergo, BitTorrent is 'evil'. Of course BT has an equally valid use for perfectly legal files. But as (presumably) no filtering will be taking place, the evil bit wins out in their eyes.

      Your example of the woman at the resort does fall into the realm of 'public performance', and as such probably needs to be paid for/licensed as required.

    4. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a vast difference between discouraging people from using a product by sharing your personal opinion of it, and undercutting the legitimate sales by providing cheaper (or free) illegal bootlegs. There is no slippery slope here. It's a question of getting something for nothing, or getting nothing for nothing. The latter is perfectly acceptable.

    5. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Are we blaming Boeing for the 9/11 tragedy too? Or blaming Kabar for making high-quality blades, because someone killed with one?

      In the US, this is a pretty common occurance. Victims of gun crime are now suing gun manufacturers and there have been a few cases against hunting knife makers that have been settled out of court.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    6. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Your example of the woman at the resort does fall into the realm of 'public performance', and as such probably needs to be paid for/licensed as required.

      Only if the unnamed carribean nation has implemented US-style copyright laws. I bet they have not, which would make what the lady did completely legal.

    7. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by nate+nice · · Score: 0

      Guns don't kill people...I do.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    8. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a vast difference between discouraging people from using a product by sharing your personal opinion of it, and undercutting the legitimate sales by providing cheaper (or free) illegal bootlegs.

      Hmm... nope, you're gonna have to explain this alleged vast difference, chief.

      If I give you a copy of The Incredible Hulk, you might say "god, this sucks" and decide not to buy a ticket or a DVD. OTOH, if *I* watch The Incredible Hulk, I might tell you "god, this sucks", and you might decide not to buy a ticket or DVD because you respect my opinion so much. In either case, the movie theater and the studio aren't getting your money.

      The only difference is that in one case, you get to see the movie anyway, which harms no one at all (except yourself, if the movie really is that bad).

      There is no slippery slope here. It's a question of getting something for nothing, or getting nothing for nothing. The latter is perfectly acceptable.

      As is the former. You can walk past a club where a loud concert is going on, and hear the music for free. You can even stop for a few minutes to listen in. You can go to a friend's house and watch his DVDs for free. You can go to the library and read books for free. You can turn on the radio and hear music for free. You can turn on TiVo and watch TV shows for free, without even watching the commercials.

      People seem to have gotten the idea that it's somehow illegitimate to enjoy any bit of content unless you've paid for the privilege. Not so.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    9. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Also, whenever you can, please keep correcting people who regard this as "piracy", "stealing" or "theft". It is nothing of the sort. It is "copyright infringement", plain and simple.

      Use of the word "piracy" in place of "copyright infringement" has been commonplace for decades, if not longer. See for example here and here.

      No, it isn't accurate. Yes, it was almost certainly started by content producers to try to provoke a negative emotional response in people. But just like the "hacker vs cracker" debate, you've already lost. There's not generally any point to fighting a battle you can't win.

      Trying to persuade people to stop calling it piracy is just going to confuse and distract from the real argument.

    10. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can walk past a club where a loud concert is going on, and hear the music for free.

      That's unimportant, as there is a world of difference between listening to a muffled, quiet rendition of each song and actually being there in the crowd. For me at least, the atmosphere is half the point of going to a gig, and you don't get that outside.

      You can go to a friend's house and watch his DVDs for free.

      If you believe the legalese on the back of the DVD case, you may well be on shaky ground there. My copy of The Increidbles says it is licensed "for private home use only", and in the list of things I'm not allowed to do are "unauthorised... exhibition,... public performance". If there are too many people there with you, you may fall foul of one or the other clause.

      Of course, no-one would ever even attempt to bring a case against you, unless you were charging admission to the general public.

      You can go to the library and read books for free.

      Your taxes pay for that.

      You can turn on the radio and hear music for free.

      Advertising pays for that.

      You can turn on TiVo and watch TV shows for free, without even watching the commercials.

      I pay for my satellite TV subscription.

      Besides which, you're (willfully?) missing the point - in none of those situations other than the last one do you actually possess a copy of the copyrighted work. That is the main difference - when you download a film off a p2p network, you do. When you listen in to a concert as you walk past, or turn on the radio, you don't have anything lasting. Even in that last case, at least as far as UK copyright law goes, while you may time-shift a broadcast, you are specifically not allowed to keep it - the law explicitly disallows building up a "library" of recorded broadcasts.

      I'm not saying that it's necessarily right, but none of your examples bear much relation to the actual topic at hand.

    11. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you knew anything about how gun makers marketed Saturday night specials, you might understand why they are being sued.

    12. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh what a load of tosh. Of course you can steal projected profits. If I download a movie or album I'm *interested* in, then the chances are that once I have it I'm not going to be buying it. If I download Star Wars, I very much doubt I'll be heading off to the cinema to watch it again.

      The point is interest, nobody downloads things they have no interest in. Interest is where the value proposition lies. Interest is generated by the millions companies spend on marketing and promotion, with the idea being that if you are sufficiently interested you will buy the product.

      There should be NO difference between digital products and physical products. They both take a hell of a lot of money, sweat and tears to produce. Just because some bastard write a utility to "swap" files doesn't make stealing them legitimate.

      Give me a valid use for bittorrent, apart for things like Distros? You can't. If he categories the file types for legal swapping that would be great, but the guy, judging by his current actions, wants to cash in. A site using Bittorrent correctly would have torrent links at the source download point. Someone using it illegally and this no wanting to post links, ... well you get my point.

      All this...fluff about it being right and legit is exactly that, fluff. Surprising really coming from Slashdot, but I guess that because its open source its somehow *right* wheres as emule, napster et al are somehow *wrong*

      You fucking hypocrites.

    13. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by geekee · · Score: 1

      "Also, whenever you can, please keep correcting people who regard this as "piracy", "stealing" or "theft". It is nothing of the sort. It is "copyright infringement", plain and simple. If I "steal" your bicycle, I have deprived you of something you previously owned, which I now posess. Making digitally-perfect copies of a work is not "stealing" or "theft", though it is very much illegal in most countries."

      How do you explain the phrase "He stole my idea.", if your arguement is correct. It isn't. Copyright infringement is theft.

      "You can't steal profits that weren't already earned. You can't steal "projected" profits. Keep up the pressure on these companies who continue to misunderstand the terms they're spewing in public. There's a certain Heinekin commercial that is grossly misrepresenting the nature of copyright infringement."

      You don't understand economics. If I make available a movie for people to download, I am competing directly with the movie maker. My product reduces the value of the original product because I am offering it for free. There is such a thing as actions which cause lost revenue. Just look at the impact on Wendys of the lady who claimed to find a finger in a bowl of chili.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    14. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Centuries, actually. In fact, it predates copyright law.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    15. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      How do you explain the phrase "He stole my idea.", if your arguement is correct.

      How do you explain why so many foods with artificial raspberry flavoring are blue?

      It's a common phrase, but that doesn't make it correct any more than the once-common belief in a flat earth was correct. The fact that a concept is popular has little to do with its accuracy. (Plus, ideas can't be copyrighted)

      It's not theft. It is OTOH, illegal. It's rather like how if you burn down someone's house, that's arson, not theft. Or if you intrude on their land, that's trespass, not theft.

      If I make available a movie for people to download, I am competing directly with the movie maker.

      So? Competition is generally regarded as a very good thing. It results in a more efficient marketplace. Additionally, if I make a different movie, targeted at the same group of customers, I'm in direct competition as well.

      Copyrights are a monopoly. They should not be tolerated unless there is a clear advantage to the public in having them, and then only to the degree that they yield the greatest public advantage.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    16. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by hacker · · Score: 1
      "How do you explain the phrase "He stole my idea.", if your arguement is correct. It isn't. Copyright infringement is theft."

      First, you can't patent, copyright, or "own" ideas. They're not property, and "stealing" and "theft" specifically pertain to property. Also, you can't "steal" an idea, because the idea still exists in your head. (more detail here)

      "There is such a thing as actions which cause lost revenue. Just look at the impact on Wendys of the lady who claimed to find a finger in a bowl of chili."

      Your analogy doesn't fit. The mere presence of digital copies of copyrighted works does not dissuade people from purchasing those same works from the same copyright holder.

      People who would have went to Wendy's were disgusted by the finger incident, and went elsewhere. Using your analogy, that is akin to knowing that sith.iso exists on the Internet, and going to see the movie "House of Wax" instead.

      You're comparing the taste of an orange to the speed of a Porsche.

    17. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      [You can go to the library and read books for free.] Your taxes pay for that.

      Sure, my local libraries. But only those.

      Is it wrong for me to read books for free at an out-of-state library while I'm on vacation? No, of course not. Paying taxes isn't what makes it ethical to read a book in a library. The fact that it's accessible makes it ethical by default.

      [You can turn on the radio and hear music for free.] Advertising pays for that.

      Again, that's different from *me* paying for it. I'm still getting something for nothing, especially if I don't patronize any of the advertisers. I'm sure you wouldn't say it's unethical for me to listen to the radio without buying any of the advertised products, would you?

      Besides which, you're (willfully?) missing the point - in none of those situations other than the last one do you actually possess a copy of the copyrighted work.

      That's beside the point. Possession and creation of copies may be important for interpreting copyright law, but it has no impact on the ethics or morals of "getting something for nothing".

      Libraries, radio, TV, and loud concerts all allow anyone to get something for nothing. We agree that doing so in those situations is OK. Therefore, getting something for nothing is not inherently wrong.

      And therefore, back to the earlier post, "in one case you're getting something for nothing, and in the other you aren't" is not a valid counterargument to my point about movie reviewers.

      People get something for nothing all the time. If you want to argue that it's wrong to do so in a specific instance, you have to show how someone is harmed by it. In this particular case (downloading a movie vs. reading a bad review), no one is harmed any more in either case: the theater and studio miss out on exactly the same amount of profit when you decide not to buy a ticket, no matter what led you to make that decision.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    18. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you can steal projected profits.

      In order to steal something from somebody, they have to own it to begin with. Copyright holders don't own anything. They don't own potential profit, they don't own an idea, they merely have the privilege of restricting some forms of copying and broadcast. That is not ownership.

      The point is interest, nobody downloads things they have no interest in.

      Not true. Often people download things to determine interest. If somebody recommends a band, I'm not going to go out and buy an album based upon one recommendation. But I might download a few tracks to see if it's worth buying.

      Give me a valid use for bittorrent, apart for things like Distros?

      That is a variant of the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. Every time somebody points out a valid use, you'll declare it an exception. Why don't distributions count?

      All this...fluff about it being right and legit is exactly that, fluff.

      Only a moron or a troll would consider "copyright infringement is not theft" to mean "copyright infringement is right and legit".

      Murder is not theft. Are you going to call me a murderer now?

    19. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "IHBT, IHL, IWTTHAND". Apologies if you're not trolling.

      Firstly, emule is open source.

      I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Give me a valid use for bittorrent, apart for things like Distros?" Bittorrent has many legit uses... from your post it seems you realise this, but I'm not toally sure. However there are cases where there aren't official torrents, or the official torrents are being heavily hit after a release and so can't be accessed. I do agree that, sadly, the majority of usage is likely to be for copyright infringement, but I can still see it being useful for non-infringing purposes, and hopefully - unlike many other torrent sites - it won't be geared towards illegal content.

    20. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1
      Copyright infringement is theft.
      Back in 1985 a man named Dowling was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property for selling infringing copies of Elvis records. U.S. Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html struck this down because copyright infringement is not theft.

      You have to deprive your victim of the item in order to steal it from them. You have to steal something to commit theft. Making copies doesn't deprive anyone of what it being copied, therefore its not theft.
      --
      Does it go on forever?
    21. Re:Does anyone see the irony here? by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      What if you give him a copy and say "Here, this is great", (or as is more likely in the whole bittorrent thing, don't say anything at all)?

  43. just a thought... by torrents · · Score: 3, Interesting

    will the search engine be open source???

    if the source is released under an open source license it would make it nearly impossible for a "gold standard" bittorrent search engine to emerge...

    getting the community to help with the development would spread out not only the work, but the blame if it ever comes down to litigation...

    --
    Get your torrents...
  44. This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from being something else for google to buy...

    It will make it a lot easier to find interesting, out of print, public domain, music files.

  45. Actually... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Informative

    according to the wired article, the search engine will allow "RIAA and friends" to target the uploaders directly and sue them.

    So the search engine will actually become a benefit for the RIAA. Which I'm perfectly OK with, since Cohen never intended BT to be a pirate tool.

    1. Re:Actually... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 5, Interesting

      according to the wired article, the search engine will allow "RIAA and friends" to target the uploaders directly and sue them.

      So the search engine will actually become a benefit for the RIAA. Which I'm perfectly OK with, since Cohen never intended BT to be a pirate tool.


      I'm firmly in this camp here. For instance, downloading a copy of ROTS is patently illegal. Ditto for the rest of the **AA stuffs.

      If, with this 'search engine', the **AA folks actually have a better tool to be used to go after the infringers, and it leads to a general cleaning up of the currant situation by virtue of the takedown notices that sites that do have the material will receive, and the filing of suits for a *reasonable* level of damages against the receivers of such material, then I see this as a net positive development.

      BTW, my view of reasonable, provided the receiver hasn't passed on any further copies, is no more than 10 times the cost of a theater ticket to see the show, times the number of people living in that household.

      That, and court costs, but no attorneys fees. Costs will probably exceed the damages that **AA will recover, and it will send a strong enough message to the average person, but it will not be a significant item in the **AA members bottom line. Net losses could well eat any profits from doing the civil suit, so it turns into a CODB for them, and something to minimize.

      OTOH, the takedown notice should be delivered in the form of a site-wide machine seizure, then followed up with a civil suit, based on the forensic data recoverable from the site that would give a good picture of how many times it was downloaded from that site. That would often lead to a net profit making it a worthwhile item on the quarterly report. This of course mixes the criminal and civil aspects, so its not that simple. Really, it should be, but combining that would put a lot of expensive legal people on the bread lines so the chances of that happening are somewhere between zip and point double ought (excrement).

      However, if the **AA make the mistake of going after the program itself, then I would hope the courts have sense enough to toss it out. That however, would appear to depend on how many judges they have on a leash, and what the leash is made of.

      The program has the potential to do much good, and I cannot see that true justice is being served in any venue that attempts to control 100% of its use.

      --
      Cheers, Gene
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
      soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
      -Ed Howdershelt (Author)

    2. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sword is naught but a sword. Be it used for good or evil is purely in the eyes of the beholder.

    3. Re:Actually... by nurb432 · · Score: 2

      Nope, screw the *AA's. Download and upload all you want.

      They dont have any rights as far as im concerned. None. Zero. Zilch.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Actually... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      And thats exactly whats wrong with this attitude. You as a rebelious individual, will find that your freedom ends at the end of the other persons nose.

      Copyright law gives them all the authority they need to correct your attitude. That attitude will be corrected in due time, possibly by means much more serious than a copyright violation. Nuff said.

      --
      Cheers, Gene
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
      soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
      -Ed Howdershelt (Author)

    5. Re:Actually... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      When they pry the DVD from my cold dead fingers.

      No, im tired of being pushed around by these sorts of 'people'. I no longer give a damn about their 'rights'.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Actually... by imogthe · · Score: 1

      So if you don't care about their 'rights' (it's their 'property' after all), why should they care about your 'rights' (think DRM/CSS/whatever)?
      Don't get me wrong. I have downloaded my fair share of copyrighed material but I have no delusions of being in the right. I treat the downloads as a free preview and I do go out and purchase the things I like. The content companies will of course treat this as illegal downloading and think I've cost them $billions in lost revenue, whereas I think it allows me to make informed decisions on where and how I spend my money.
      Sadly, the political climate at the moment seems to be in favour of these companies and not the customers. No amount of breaking these 'laws'* will make them go away. It'll only serve to reinforce the industry's belief that their customers are only looking to 'steal' their stuff.

      So, will I stop downloading before I buy? Not likely. Am I a hypocrite? Absolutely:)

      *) I don't like to think of these bought laws as real laws, but that's a story for another time!

  46. Re:Good Lord Simpson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this notorious copyright never stop his illegal activities?

    Enough is enough I say! I instist on legal steps taken against this thief immediately.

  47. Perhaps SMS is a better medium by Urusai · · Score: 1

    Certainly a uuencoded signature block at worst.

  48. Who says they need a law? by Otto · · Score: 1

    I've noticed quite a few posts already mentioning napster and that the RIAA would shut this down, but based on what law?

    Why would they need a law? All they have to do is sue them. You can sue anybody for anything.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  49. Surely... by irchs · · Score: 1

    ...anyone can build a web site based searching system that searches through the distributed DB and builds a cache for faster searching?!

    Shouldn't be too hard, /me starts painting a big target on his forhead.

    Jan

    --
    Jan
  50. search.bittorrent.com == www.towerseek.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No one here will probably ever read this as I'm posting as AC, but this BitTorrent stuff is making me feel on edge these days..

    Anyhow, I checked out the new BitTorrent search and the results pages are identical to the ones returned by TowerSeek. Here's a test you can do to see the similarities:

    Searching search.bittorrent.com for "doctor"
    Searching www.towerseek.org for "doctor"

    Did the 'official' site just scrape TowerSeek's database? TowerSeek has been around for a while now so it's definately a possibility.

    1. Re:search.bittorrent.com == www.towerseek.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably based on the same code

  51. Bram changed his mind? by atomm1024 · · Score: 1

    Originally, Bram Cohen intended BitTorrent to be used for personal/commercial content distribution by the content creators, or when permitted by copyright, such as Linux distributions. All of those are legal uses. For anexample of personal content distribution, consider when a person creates their own videos or songs, and wants to give some of it away for free online, but doesn't have the bandwidth to serve a full copy to each downloader. The decentralization, and especially the addition of a search engine, seem to benefit illegal movie/music/software sharing more than legitimate content/software distribution. Moral judgment aside, does this mean Bram changed his mind, or just that he wants to expand the possible uses of BitTorrent regardless of what they are?

    --
    Signature.
    1. Re:Bram changed his mind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, my experience with BitTorrent to obtain Linux distributions could certainly be improved. Specifically, the web-to-torrent gateways seem to be brittle in various ways. Having a search functionality grafted into BitTorrent seems to be a legitimate approach toward solving this problem. Saving the world from software piracy is really a different problem, and not one that we can fairly expect Bram to solve.

  52. Well, this is going to have one good effect... by jlseagull · · Score: 3, Funny

    The storage industry is going to have a second coming. I just placed an order for 2 more 300GB drives for my home media server. :)

    --
    'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
  53. Napster conflict all over again? by syntap · · Score: 1

    Napster got into trouble primarily because it provided transfer medium plus directory service. BitTorrent was probably in the clear for just having the transfer medium, but Bram's name on a directory service is probably a mistake.

    Then again, Napster got sold for umpteen millions and is now a pay service... maybe what Bram is doing is good in the long run for him but not for bitTorrent as we know it.

  54. Seems like a bad idea by Devil · · Score: 0

    This seems like a very bad idea. Isn't it exactly this sort of thing that got sites like Suprnova shut down? I mean, they weren't hosting a single copyrighted product, but they got killed anyway. Then again, perhaps Bram is looking for a big legal fight.

    Such a thing, I think, will only serve to showcase how BT is used only for piracy. The MPAA will be able to say, "Look at all these copyrighted works they're distributing!", while good uses of BT, like Blizzard's BT distribution system, will be overlooked as a legitimate use of the technology. It seems that this will only serve to (further) de-legitimize BT in the eyes of the public, when in fact it's a godsend of technology. We should be promoting its legal uses and trying to minimize the perception of BT as solely a tool for piracy.

    1. Re:Seems like a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      once again.
      SUPRNOVA DID NOT GET SHUT DOWN!

      EVER!

      they quit and started the exeem project. which sucks balls. and (trys) to make them money.

      they sold out. they never got shut down.

  55. It all makes sense! by aggies11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have two choices when it comes to torrents. Either disown the sharing of copyrighted material "Piracy is Bad. We don't support piracy at all. Torrents can be used for GOOD!".

    Or, you can try to legitimize "piracy" itself. Ie. Make the downloading of copyright material, so widespread, and so common, that the content providers have NO CHOICE but change their business models. Essentially force a revolution.

    I'd guess, thats what Mr. Cohen is up to. The MPAA and RIAA aren't going to be convinced that Torrenting is "good" or "just a protocol". So rather than try in vain, he's gonna play by their rules, open the gates wide open, and legitimize piracy.

    Remember, content providers are not gonna change by choice, they are not going to do the right thing because we ask nicely. The only way they will smarten up is if they are given no choice "change, or die".

    So the plan isn't to deny piracy. It's to embrace it, make it so big it's unstoppable, to induce a paradigm shift in the industry. To bring on the revolution.

    Heck, it might even work.

    Aggies

    1. Re:It all makes sense! by Zackbass · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, but you did pick up on the important point that I haven't seen much mention of. Why this is happening is much more important than how or what its immediete effects will be. Mr. Cohen has made his position on piracy over bittorrent very clear over the years and it simply doesn't jive with these actions. What this says to me is that he feels he has a very good hand with this search engine and is going to play it. I don't how he thinks this will all play out or even whether it has to do with piracy directly, but this is a deliberate action indicating a thought out plan.

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    2. Re:It all makes sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The third choice is to simply download anyway without any pretense of an altruistic motive.

    3. Re:It all makes sense! by m50d · · Score: 1
      I don't think so. What was wrong with ed2k and all the other networks for doing that?

      Bittorrent as originally started was designed to make P2P as a whole legitimate, because it could only be used for legitimate stuff. It was made as similar as possible in use to straight http, so that anyone who shut down the central server would shut down the whole thing. This was a deliberate attempt to make "piracy" with it impossible, just as piracy over the ordinary web is pretty rare.

      Now I have no idea what the hell he's trying to do.

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:It all makes sense! by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Actually, you have more choices than that - you can also say "I don't give a flying fuck about whether the *AA's copyrights are infringed using BitTorrent or not - *I* only use it for non-infringing things, and that's all that matters to me".

      Which, I might add, I think is what the majority of BitTorrent users do. Where do those claims that the vast majority of BitTorrent usage is for illegal (depending on where you are etc.) activities come from, anyway? I can see why the *AA wants everyone to believe that that's the case, but I am not convinced at all that there are more people downloading the latest Star Wars movie on BitTorrent than there are people downloading, say, Debian Linux.

      Of course, maybe there are. But it may just as well be that there are not, and the burden of proof really is on the one making the statement.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    5. Re:It all makes sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you can try to legitimize "piracy" itself. Ie. Make the downloading of copyright material, so widespread, and so common...

      Simply downloading copyrighted material IS NOT PIRACY. You do it every time you read a web page. And people have been making search engines for more than a decade. This is no great revolutionary tactic, it's just a search engine.

    6. Re:It all makes sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, Hopeful

    7. Re:It all makes sense! by Eric+S+Raymond · · Score: 1

      Doesn't isohunt.com already do this? you can even type in the files hash, to find other trackers hosting it. I can't say it always works, though.

      --
      Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
    8. Re:It all makes sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Cohen has made his position on piracy over bittorrent very clear over the years and it simply doesn't jive with these actions.

      Yes it does. BitTorrent is a protocol just like any other, it's not something that has to be hidden away and hard to access on some seedy website. A search engine merely helps BitTorrent users.

      The only way a BitTorrent search engine is a tool intended for copyright infringement is if you've already bought into the fallacy that BitTorrent itself is a tool intended for copyright infringement.

    9. Re:It all makes sense! by aggies11 · · Score: 1

      "the burden of proof really is on the one making the statement."

      In an ideal world, I'd say yes. However I'd say in todays age "burden of proof" becomes "proof of money and lawyers". Corporations and the like are able to essentially buy away the rights and freedoms of the people. Whether it's right or wrong, doesn't seem to enter into it much.

      Torrent has been labeled a "pirates" tool. Whether or not it's true doesn't seem to matter, the media can be convinced, and so probably can the courts/legislators. Money talks. And lots of money SCREAMS.

      So if Bram realizes this, that no matter what he says or does, torrent's days might be over, this could be his attempt to "fight back".

      Aggies

  56. The parent is modded as funny, but makes a point by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I also firmly believe adding search capability to BitTorrent itself is a mistake. Let third parties handle it if they want it that badly.

  57. Bitoogle by Teja · · Score: 3, Informative

    While you can just access it already by going here you can, in the meantime, use Bitoogle it has been around for quite some time now. It is okay I suppose, personally I just prefer Torrentspy. It has a much larger contribution and a large userbase.

    --
    - Teja
  58. Magnet URI's would be better on usenet by Danathar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually.....

    You would'nt have to distribute the torrent file. A one liner with a Magnet URI address of a torrent swarm managed by the distributed hash schemes networks now in use would be all you would need in the Usenet post.

    In fact, I'm rather surprised since the latest version of Azureus supports it (and it's easy to find out what the URI address is of the torrent you are part of..there is an option to copy it to your clipboard in Azureus) that I have'nt seen Magnet URI addresses on websites on web sites to hosting torrent files. It would definitely cut back on the bandwidth a site would have manage.

    1. Re:Magnet URI's would be better on usenet by Saeger · · Score: 3, Interesting
      1. Here's a magnet link for "Stargate SG1 Season 8 (TV Rip)": magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3PSCDQCDORU3MONAE5C3XTF6IKO5WM AY
      2. Psst, you can buy weed down at the park (if you don't have any friends).
      3. pop quiz: which of those two harmless pointers is currently "more illegal"? :)

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    2. Re:Magnet URI's would be better on usenet by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Oh agree with you...but from a purely technical perspective of posting pointers on Usenet Magnet would probably work better.

  59. Perpetuating the myth by Dammital · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Quoth the poster:
    "dedicated to cataloging and indexing the thousands of movies, music tracks, software programs..."
    Puh-leeze. The engine indexes everything it finds, just as the dozens of webcrawlers on the 'net do. Bram Cohen's system isn't "dedicated" to indexing illegal stuff. It's mindless; it can't tell the difference.

    By listing only the illegal things that appear on the P2P networks, you help perpetuate the notion that they are inherently bad, and become a willing stooge for the MPAA and its lackeys. It wasn't germane to your post, anymore than mentioning

    1. Re:Perpetuating the myth by PureFiction · · Score: 1

      that doesn't mean that maintaining filters / removing illicit links won't be a problem. hopefully this is something that can be mostly automated. filtering requirements brought down audiogalaxy for example :)

      [I'm sure Bram has addressed this issue; I'm just curious to see how much effort they will expend complying]

  60. In other words... by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    advertising-supported piracy. Sounds sweet. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that P2P is in itself bad or anything. I'm not saying that P2P *is* piracy. What I'm saying, though, is that probably 90% of all users will be searching for pirated stuff (software, movies...). And if the searching is advertising-supported, it all becomes extremely rotten - that's what it seems to me.

    In extreme scenarii, we could even envision people looking for a pirated Photoshop version while looking at an Adobe advertisement banner. Pretty funky if you ask me. ;-)

    1. Re:In other words... by babyrat · · Score: 1

      or even better, looking at an Adobe advertisement banner and *then* getting the idea to grab photoshop :)

    2. Re:In other words... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, where did those "90%" come from? Do you actually have any data that indicates that the vast majority BitTorrent users use it for copyright infringement instead of, say, grabbing the latest Debian ISOs, or did you just pull some numbers out of your ass that sounded good to you?

      Ah, thought so. Maybe next time, you should be a bit more careful - even on Slashdot, where most statements are usually taken with at least a grain of salt, anyway. :)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:In other words... by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

      Uh huh, take a look at this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/media_starwars_pi racy_dc

      Of course, this is just an example. There are many. 90% was just an estimated figure - of course no one has the real figure, and all the more because of the inherently decentralized nature of Bittorrent. All I know is, contrary to what it was a couple years ago (when Bittorrent was actually mostly used for distributing Open Source software), most people who turn to Bittorrent do so for their "general purpose P2P needs". Which doesn't mean sharing their last vacation's pictures... ;-) Again, I'm not blaming the tool itself - which is merely a tool. But the idea of advertising on top of it? A very, very bad idea in my opinion. To me, P2P remains ok as long as it doesn't involve any commercial activity. P2P is just that: peer-to-peer. There is no room for "meddlers". Or else we just stop calling it P2P and give it another name. Shared storage for instance...

  61. This is nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been torrent search engines around for a while. What makes this one any different?

  62. Is there a firefox search extension yet? NT by Zarxrax · · Score: 1

    Topic

  63. Are we sure that's a good thing? by daikokatana · · Score: 1

    I assume that the people who will be most interested in this sort of technology, will belong to the MPAA/RIAA/whatever. 1. Search for movies you have copyright for 2. Download as evidence (to prove it's the file you're after) 3. Contact your favourite lawyer, pass all found IP addresses to him/her 4. sue & profit! Whether or not BitTorrent is used mostly for legal or illegal stuff, in the end it will create a not so calm but steady flow of negative comments in the media. I fear that in the end BitTorrent will not be seen as a positive thing.

    --
    http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
    1. Re:Are we sure that's a good thing? by daikokatana · · Score: 1
      Bugger... That should have read:

      I assume that the people who will be most interested in this sort of technology, will belong to the MPAA/RIAA/whatever.

      1. Search for movies you have copyright for
      2. Download as evidence (to prove it's the file you're after)
      3. Contact your favourite lawyer, pass all found IP addresses to him/her
      4. sue & profit!

      Whether or not BitTorrent is used mostly for legal or illegal stuff, in the end it will create a not so calm but steady flow of negative comments in the media. I fear that in the end BitTorrent will not be seen as a positive thing.

      --
      http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
  64. Inducing infringment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inducing infringment

  65. Firefox Plugin Available by runswithd6s · · Score: 1

    I hacked together a quick firefox plugin and posted it on mycroft. You can download it from http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html. Search for bittorrent and click on the icon to install.

    --
    assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
    1. Re:Firefox Plugin Available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      search.jsp now returns a 404

    2. Re:Firefox Plugin Available by runswithd6s · · Score: 1

      Yep. It looks like Bram and Co. have flipped the switch and turned off the search site to the general public.

      --
      assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
  66. A target, sure, but on BitTorrent/Bram or users? by klausboop · · Score: 1

    You may be right, but wouldn't those protections also apply to the suprnova.org-type sites? And they were shut down. Some were apparently shut down by mere threats, just because they couldn't afford to defend themselves even if they would have won. My worry is that Bram will not be able to withstand the onslaught of lawsuits that he'll be required to defend to seek the protections you mention.

    With that said, I have to wonder if this centralized search will make it easier for the various copyright organizations to hunt down people distributing infringing content? Maybe the content owners/rights organizations will welcome this because they can cherry-pick offenders? If so, maybe Bram and BitTorrent continue to revolutionize Internet file distribution (and thus Content), while people reduce the use of BitTorrent for infringing uses. Is that a possible scenario?

    --
    Some of you already have those cute little shirts on that say disco sucks, right? That's not all that sucks.-Frank Zappa
  67. Uhhh, yeah by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I'd make a comment as to what this search engine would primarily be used for, but the owners of /. recently reset my 50 karma to -1 because of similar comments.

    So, I'm scared, but we all know what it'll be used for, nudge nudge, wink wink.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  68. Search engine for the RIAA/MPAA by Z-Knight · · Score: 1

    So this search engine will simply make it easier for the RIAA/MPAA to track and send more unsubstantiated/threatening/idiot letters and suits.

    1. Re:Search engine for the RIAA/MPAA by v3xt0r · · Score: 1, Interesting

      basically.

      why not just build a spywarez'ed version of BT that sends data to RIAA/MPAA/BSA/etc.

      similar to kazaa, hotline, etc.

      --
      the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  69. Who needs trackers anyway? by mrogers · · Score: 1
    Either that, or someone will write a new protocol that doesn't require trackers. The tracker just gives each peer the addresses of other peers that are sharing the same file. Decentralized search overlays like Gnutella do exactly the same thing. The only difference is that Gnutella downloads use HTTP, while BitTorrent downloads use a custom protocol with tit-for-tat bandwidth allocation. (Bandwidth is allocated by the peers, not the tracker.)

    Sooner or later someone less lazy than me will graft tit-for-tat bandwidth allocation onto Gnutella, or decentralized peer discovery onto BitTorrent, and trackers will be a thing of the past.

    1. Re:Who needs trackers anyway? by franl · · Score: 1
      Either that, or someone will write a new protocol that doesn't require trackers. [...] Sooner or later someone less lazy than me will graft [...] decentralized peer discovery onto BitTorrent, and trackers will be a thing of the past.
      Umm. BitTorrent and Azureus already have decentralized peer discovery. See this Slashdot article for details.
    2. Re:Who needs trackers anyway? by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Oops. Thanks for the link :0)

  70. New trackerless and index-less bit-torrent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No central point of failure. Cannot be shut down by the evil thugs (RIAA, MPAA, Promusicae, ...). Check it out here!

  71. Others have tried it by CyZooNiC · · Score: 1

    Anyone remeber n4p.com? It didn't take long for the MPAA to take it down.

  72. Bend over Bram by supabeast! · · Score: 1

    I hope Bram makes a lot of money from that advertising, because he's about to incur tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and their international counterparts have spent two years searching for an excuse to sue him into a financial hole he'll never get out of, and he's about to hand it over to them in a gift wrapped box.

    Even if by some crazy stroke of luck he actually manages to get free legal counsel, fight back, and win the suits, it will take him years and numerous court appearances to do so. At this point I'm seriously wonder if he's brave, crazy, or just plain stupid. I'm hoping that it's bravado with some kind of intellectual backing, because I've thought highly of him right up until today...

  73. valve? by u-238 · · Score: 1

    doesn't bram work for the game software company valve?

    1. Re:valve? by jensen404 · · Score: 1

      He only worked at Valve a short while. Something about having to maintain a fundamentally broken peice of software.

  74. A wanted man by The+Angry+Artist · · Score: 0

    Ever since the RIAA/MPAA started going after BitTorrent, they've gone after the trackers, not Bram Cohen. Why? Because Bram simply wrote code that lets a person pass around any information.

    The differences between him and Grokster are that Grokster is a company, and Grokster has a search engine.

    It appears that is about to change: BitTorrent will have a search engine, and a staff (which could be interpreted as a company) to run it. It'll be likely that we'll soon see Mr. Cohen in court.

    On a side note, Bram Cohen in an interview expressed disinterest in downloading copyrighted material with BT. Why? Because the entertainment industry would love to make an example out of him.

    --
    If you're reading this, stop it.
  75. Re:Ass-burgers by Dahan · · Score: 1

    wins!

  76. Knock, knock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q: Who's there?
    A: The Feds.

  77. Torrent Club by Tantrum420 · · Score: 3, Funny

    1st RULE: You do not talk about TORRENT CLUB.

    2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about TORRENT CLUB.

    3rd RULE: If some tracker says "unreachable", goes offline, or cannot scrape, the torrent is over.

    4th RULE: Many seeders to a torrent.

    5th RULE: Many torrents at a time.

    6th RULE: Shirts and Shoes optional.

    7th RULE: Torrents will go on as long as they can.

    8th RULE: If this is your first night at TORRENT CLUB, you HAVE to download.

  78. NOW THAT WE KNOW BRAM BETTER... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can his new "decentralized" BitTorrent be trusted? Can we be sure there are no backdoors for exposing downloaders' info? Well, BitTorrent wasn't really meant to be anonymous--just a way of effectively utilizing bandwidth, so I can't say any of this should be a surprise.

  79. Judges... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    The judges aren't going to care about the technical details of what program transfers what to where and how many levels of indirection there are. The judge is just going to be shown that the defendant is operating a web site where users click on the name of a movie copyrighted by the plaintiff and it downloads to the user's computer. Any other details will be irrelevant.

    Sorry, but that's just the way it will be.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
    1. Re:Judges... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I ask this as an honest question: aren't judges supposed to care about technical details?

      I would've thought that it does matter whether you were the person that gave out [illegal item] or whether you just said "I know a guy who can tell you where to get [illegal item]". Why isn't it the same online?

    2. Re:Judges... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      aren't judges supposed to care about technical details?

      Yeah, but I wasn't talking about how things were supposed to be, I was considering how things probably actually are.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  80. I dunno. by aonaran · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure this is a smart move on Cohen's part.

    It'd be lovely to have another search engine for torrents, but I think the only thing keeping the *AA's from suing him like they did the owners of Kazaa is that he doesn't control any network that has shows/music or information on how to get shows/music.... He just created a protocol that a lot of pirates like to use.

    I'm afraid that his search engine will end up either crippled to not display certain results or forcibly removed from the net just like most of the tracker sites.

  81. What changed his mind? by mcheu · · Score: 1

    If I recall correctly, for a very long time Brahm Cohen resisted the idea of decentralizing the trackers and adding search capabilities into BT. If I recall some of the issues presented were that distributed tracking and searching capabilities would eat up bandwidth, and that they didn't make sense for the legitimate uses that Cohen originally envisioned. What's changed his mind?

  82. Spread like fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the effects of this will be, trackerless and search engine.
    Will it spread like fire?

    What is/will be next?

  83. Pirates Bay Protection Model by Wizarth · · Score: 1

    Something to consider is where the company creating this is based, as well as the people creating it. If they are not within the USA or one of the other countries that follow USA's lead, they may be very able to tell the RIAA/MPAA etc what they can do. Especially since, as some-one pointed out, they are approximately 3 steps away from any pirated content. In any country that isn't the USA (or one of its sycophants) this should be clear enough to a judge. As long as it gets to a judge, and isn't taken down by strong-arm tactics out of court.

  84. Promote legal content: make more available by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this helps create a situation where unlawful content drops into the noise in comparison with all of the lawful content, BT will be seen less and less as a tool for pirates, and it will be more obvious the value that (practically all of us here know) it provides.

    I would say that if everyone just decided to start posting torrent links everywhere -- especially now that it can be done trackerless -- this is exactly what will happen.

    So, my recommendation: post appropriate, well classified, well keyworded torrent links, and download only legal content, so that any of the usual poisoning attacks will fail.

  85. the googleplex grows? by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 0

    Then googlypoos will buy Bram's biz?

  86. How... by earthstar · · Score: 1
    the search engine will allow "RIAA and friends" to target the uploaders directly and sue them

    Can someone tell me technically, how thw search engine makes it easier for the RIAA to pin point the uploader correctly ?
    whats the method?