Slashdot Mirror
IsoHunt Shut Down?
psic writes "One of the most popular torrent search sites, IsoHunt, was taken down on tuesday. The owners of the site say that the move came from their ISP without prior notice, though it is probably linked with the MPAA's lawsuit against various torrent search sites earlier this year. They plan on moving ISPs from the US to Canada, and say that moving the servers so someplace like Sweden or Sealand is not an option, as they put it: "BitTorrent was created for legitimate distribution of large media files, and we stand by that philosophy as a search engine and aggregator."" This is a story we've heard before with other sites, only serving to further demonstrate that playing wack a mole with torrent aggregators isn't the solution to anything.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers
anyone got a mirror?
This is a story we've heard before with other sites, only serving to further demonstrate that playing wack a mole with torrent aggregators isn't the solution to anything.
I wholeheartedly agree that, from the perspective of the **AA, playing wack-a-mole isn't a good solution. But as an observer it's pretty funny.
More seriously, I think it is providing a long term solution, just not the one the **AA want. As these stories grow they continue to be seen as the greedy bullies they truly are. The main purpose of the RIAA and MPAA these days is to do the dirty work for the actual labels/studios and absorb the backlash. People get mad at the RIAA, not Sony. Or so the strategy goes. As anti-RIAA and anti-MPAA sentiment grows in severity and spreads into the mainstream, there will start to be bleedthrough to the actual labels and studios.
So basically the wack-a-mole strategy is the best education we could hope for that IP laws are a disgrace, that greed is the real motivator of DRM, and that DRM does nothing but create a nuisance for the consumer without effectively harming pirates. I want more and more of your average Joes to hear about stuff like this and start asking "What is with these guys anyway?" The answers will lead to some sensible IP reform.
It's a long-term goal, and I realize that in the meantime a lot of innocent people are having their lives ruined, but I think that tactics like this go a long way towards the final solution for DRM.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Who wouldnt want to be the first torrent site on Sealand?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Good one, probably a little bit better than TPB for a few files. I also liked their "mod choice" or whatever it was called. They actually approved certain files so you knew you weren't getting dummy info. they also had a ton of trackers for every torrent.
I hope they go back up soon. I liked them.
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
Its frustrating to see sites take the fall for things that aren't their fault. Holding isoHunt responsible for people downloading illegal content is stupid. Why stop with isohunt? Why not hold google responsible for letting me find torrent sites? Why not hold schools responsible for teaching me how to search for things on the internet? Why not hold dell responsible for letting me run files I shouldn't?
They get turned off in the US so they move to Canada how is that proving a point instead of moving to Sweden or some other country where it isn't sketchy. Is it that they just got a good offer from Canada or are they trying to jump ship from the states.
Wouldn't a bigger statment be to stay in the states cause that seems ot me what they are trying to do.
It just seems somewhat contradictory to move from the States to Canada and then say we won't move to Sweeden because its too easy?
"BitTorrent was created for legitimate distribution of large media files, and we stand by that philosophy as a search engine and aggregator."
"...and at the same time, we know that 99% of what our customers are looking for is pirated, and we've made handsome advertising revenue. We'd like to keep making money off of the huge demand for piracy -- it's not like copyright owners have a monopoly on the concept of 'greed', you know -- so we're going to keep doing it, and keep throwing around that 'legitimate distribution' phrase, just because we enjoy the irony."
At least TPB is a little more honest and straightforward in their goals. "legitimate distribution." Right, that's exactly what the typical isohunt customer is after, and that's exactly why they were purportedly sued by copyright holders. All that "legitimate distribution."
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Unfortunately it doesn't work for the leechers. Otherwise I think it's great.
c++;
I hadn't heard of that torrent site, but just as a test I googled this:
"king kong torrent"
try it, and check out the top links (the top two are from isohunt)
That was just the first hollywood movie that popped into my head.
It may well be that isohunt carried a lot of perfectly legal torrents, but any torrent site that carries a huge amount of copyrighted stuff is going to be attacked by the people owning the copyright. If you really want to support legal p2p, you need to make damn sure your site is absolutely rigorous when it comes to filtering out illegal content.
In an ideal world, the anti-DRM, pro p2p crowd would be the very people who were actively moderating sites like these and keeping them clean of illegal content. As it is, nobody is going to take seriously any claims about such sites being mostly for legal use.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
All well and good until your ISP throttles all bandwidth for unapproved services, where "approved" services are ones sanctioned by the RIAA/MPAA, and which also pay a tithe to your ISP.
With the end of network neutrality, it could easily happen.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So, if you make a move on your sister, isn't that incest? Ewwww
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
torrents are just the hurricane katrina of the internet.
Cripes, I *WISH* torrents had that sort of speed. :-\
BTW, I fully admit to being a looter. I know the law. I just don't give a shit. In a world where our government is selling us out to another country, where illegal aliens are given more rights than citizens, where some soccer dude can get handed a quarter of a -*BILLION*- dollars for playing a game, why should I be a nice little nobody who follows all the rules? Fuck all that. It's every man for himself from this point on.
The copyright holders are losing, not because TPB or ISOHunt will always pop back up, but because they are trusting the business and revenue to a group of people who are whole heartedly working overtime to ruin their business. The **AA are subhumans (more or less) who are trying to create a supply and demand situation where the demand is greater than the supply by choking off all supplies but their own. This is typically termed manipulating the market in most circles, but they have paid the lawmakers to make it look legal.
The only people who will continue to lose out in big ways are the content creators who sell their copyrights to big business like the **AAs of the world. Right now, we are seeing the beginning of content creators starting to distribute their products without the help of the **AAs of the world, and its working. The more that happens, and the more that we, the people with a clue, name the companies responsible for bad laws, jacked up prices, market manipulation... the more chance there is of John Q Public understanding what is happening and voting appropriately.
So, who is responsible? Sony? No, there are way more than a few. Here is the RIAAs board of directors:
Polly Anthony Geffen Records
Mitch Bainwol RIAA
Glen Barros Concord Records
Steve Bartels Island Records
Victoria Bassetti EMI Recorded Music
Jose Behar Universal Music Group
Tim Bowen SONY BMG
Bob Cavallo Buena Vista Music
Mike Curb Curb Records
Joe Galante SONY BMG
Ivan Gavin EMI Recorded Music
Charles Goldstuck RCA Music Group
Zach Horowitz Universal Music Group
Dave Johnson Warner Music Group
Craig Kallman The Atlantic Group
Lawrence Kenswil Universal Music Group
Michael Koch Koch Entertainment
Mel Lewinter Universal Music Group
Kevin Liles Warner Music Group
Alan Meltzer Wind-up Records
Deirdre McDonald SONY BMG
David Munns EMI Recorded Music
Jason Flom Virgin Records America
Tom Silverman Tommy Boy Records
Andy Slater Capitol Records
Rob Stringer SONY BMG
Tom Whalley Warner Bros. Records
http://www.riaa.com/about/leadership/board.asp Board of directors
If you want to know if someone's music is safe from **AA, try http://www.riaaradar.com/
I am certain that there are plenty of other resource on the Internet as well. So, lets all join together and try to make sure that content creators understand what the **AAs are doing to their business... namely killing it and any chance of real revenue.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I thought that's what we are accused of? Not buying, that is.
anyone who's taken a simple econ course understands supply and demandDid you take one of those courses yourself? The cost of a product generally follows the simple equation demand / supply. When supply is infinite, as it is when you can copy something with zero effort without affecting the original, the cost approach zero. In order to be able to extort the consumers in paying a lot more than the products are worth, there are lobbied laws in place to force an artificial scarcity of the product.
c++;
but when it comes to proving your case, it's the effort that counts.
No, it's not. Copyright is not like trademarks. They don't run out if you don't enforce them. And the only evidence you need to convinct someone is proof they infringed. Past enforcement efforts have no bearing.
So all these guys are doing is harrassing people and making themselves look worse. Is there a better solution? I don't know. But it's pretty clear that the shotgun lawsuit approach simply doesn't work.
the **AA are still gormless twits, this is like shutting down the nfl by getting rid of individual players... the frameworks by which these sites run exist on a plane they do not nor could they ever understand with their antiquated ideas of "how things are". Their reality is gone and good riddance. The truth is, had they labels jumped in and started the selling their shit on-line immediately, they would have had loyal customers, but now they have made adversaries of the very people they need to stay alive.
Please, someone bitch-slap them off the planet, they really annoy me... perhaps to the same planet the buggy-whip makers are on...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Hey! It's perfectly legal for me to time shift a TV show using a blank tape and a VCR. Why would it be illegal to time shift the same show with a torrent site and a computer?
Torrents generally encompass people-shifting, which isn't quite legal...
Shutting down a large torrent site is a flawed strategy because it forces users to look up alternatives, strengthening many other sites. It's like a hydra. You cut off one head seven other heads grow back.
If your case revolves around proving that you were harmed (as all civil cases do), then it does matter. What does it say when you have 10 people infringing your copyrights, and you single one of them out and claim that they're causing you irreparable harm, while the other 9 are doing the same thing? The harm must not be that severe, right? This will impact your ability to make your case and the ultimate compensation you receive.
What tripe. Copy != Stealing.
Copyright is an arbitrary ARTIFICIAL law -- whose time has come and past. Why is illegal? Because the government says so; and who creates the government? The people, and the people clearely are showing that it's an archaic hold-over when information was a scarce commodity.
Sharing is caring. That's the best kind of (free) advertising you can get!
Cheers
Their new ISP is in Toronto and it's called NeutralData.com. So will they not get a lawsuit slapped on them by the RIAA/MPAA even if they are in Canada?
Meh.
I'm afraid that's just how people are going to think (not that I disagree either) as the corruption and greed in government/corporation grows more obvious every day. And it's this exposure that the they are trying to control or stop if possible, while the copyright crime spree continues. They are setting themselves up for a real disaster. This is why groups like IBM are calling for "reform". The ground could collapse from underneath at any moment, and they have a helluva lot invested in the status quo. I'm calling for a "copyriot". Copy and distribute everything you can get your hands on.
What?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think Laches applies, as that implies prejudicial delay. Sure, if you wait around and then try to sue someone for billions of dollars in damages, the court may tell you to piss off. But it's not clear if that applies to cases like these.
And it appears estoppel only applies if an infringer was given the expectation that their acts are condoned. Clearly, that's not the case (ie, massive advertising campaigns, etc), so I don't see how that would apply.
'course, this is all speculation from a lightly informed spectator, so perhaps you have a more educated take on the situation.
I looked at your site, and it looks like you create good games and deal fairly. I'd be willing to bet that most insightful /.ers, anti-DRM stance notwithstanding, would view you as one of the "good guys." Of course you have a right to be paid for your work. Since you sell it directly, I'm happy to pay you for it. I hope many others feel the same.
My problem is that I find it socially irresponsible to fund media cartels who manipulate the legal systems of various countries in an effort to artificially inflate prices and maintain a monopoly over the distribution channel.
Is that more irresponsible than pirating content? I don't know; I honestly struggle with that question. I do not believe that "information wants to be free" means that people are entitled to take and enjoy the creative works of others without paying. Doing creative work is partly an act of investment, and like any other, one of the rewards can be passive income after the work is created. Some seem to believe that people should be denied rewards on that investment if their trade happens to be creative works. I don't agree, and I don't think that view represents the majority, either.
But along the same lines, I don't believe those who control the market for content creators' products (payola, etc.) are entitled to misrepresent the revenue stream on their balance sheet & rip those artists off, either. I don't believe corporate entities are entitled to retroactively rescind the public domain status of works that have passed into that domain. I don't believe that media corporations are entitled to force internet and satellite broadcasters into using expensive, proprietary streaming formats by legislatively mandating "approved" DRM frameworks. And I don't believe that distributors or creators are entitled to multiple payments for each device I wish to use my purchased content on. Except for a few bright spots, what we've got right now is a crap system, IMO.
Ultimately, I hope a system evolves that enables me to be a good customer of the artists I like and feel good about it. You going independent is a seedling of such a system; I hope something resembling an aggregator of your distribution system becomes the norm instead of the alternative in the near future.
Pi Ran Out
Don't you realize that BitTorrent is designed as a zero-sum game? If some people have ratios over 1:1, other people must have ratios under it because the average of the whole community has to be exactly 1:1.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Clearly you have never created anything you hold valuable.
I'm going to have to stand up and give my unpopular opinion here. Copyright does have its place. People SHOULD have the right to retain ownership of things they worked hard to create. They SHOULD be allowed to choose what happens to what they have created. If that means letting a limited number of people seeing it, if that means only allowing it to be seen in certain galleries or theaters or sold in certain stores, if that means charging what they feel is a fair price for each reproduction of that work, if that means not allowing other people to distribute their work freely then they have the right to that - for a finite, and fair, amount of time. I create stuff. I write stories. One day, I hope to publish and make money from what I write, which is why not everything I write is freely available online. I don't want people to randomly copy and paste my stories elsewhere without asking me. I'm lenient, but I draw the line at people who profit themselves from it, or don't give me due credit. Is that so bad? Don't I have the right to draw that line?
The argument is this: the movie studios and recording companies believe that they are losing staggering amounts of money from piracy. They believe - or have convinced themselves - that EVERY downloaded song or movie is a lost physical sale and therefore they SUE indiscriminately, for appallingly disproportionate sums and prison terms (decades in some cases), to make it so that the general public FEARS piracy.
But the fact of the matter is: when you copy me, I may lose sales - or, I may not. But I also gain a wider audience for my work. And through that wider audience I may gain sales - more than I originally lost (whatever that number is). If I am an artist and I created solely so that people could see my work, then I lose NOTHING. If I am a businessman and created solely for profit, I MAY lose something, or I may gain something.
The pro-piracy argument here is surely not that "all information should be free, everything you ever created should be available to everybody for no cost and they shouldn't have to pay you". That's insane. The argument is that choice should be with the creator - something the internet has facilitated, to the **AA's chagrin.
I'm beginning to ramble so I'll stop here.
qntm.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I tried to read that out loud at work. Now I'm stuck trying to explain to my coworkers that I am, in fact, not having a seizure.
The people made J.K. Rowling richer than the Queen of England. The people paid damn near a half-billion dollars for tickets to see Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The people are buying the DVD in similiar numbers.
The Geek could stand a touch more humility when he claims to know what "the people" want.
There are perhaps a half-dozen studios world-wide that have demonstrated they can finance and produce theatrical animation at the Pixar level. It takes about five years, $100 million dollars, and the labor of four hundred people to bring a project like The Incredibles to completion. That, to my mind, is a fair definition of scarcity.
The Geek never sees the distinction between production and distribution, the original and the copy.
But it obviously should be legal, at least in the case of media that's broadcast for free - that is, media that the receiver could've recorded himself.
I can record The Office and watch it later at my home, if I want to spend the time to program my VCR. But let's say I'm busy or technophobic: I can pay someone to come to my house, set up a VCR, and program it to record The Office, right? Nothing wrong with that.
Now take it one step further. Why shouldn't I be able to pay someone to record The Office using his VCR, and bring the tape over for me to watch? It saves him the hassle of coming over to my house just to push a few buttons on my VCR, and the end result is the same: I watch the show later, on tape, instead of live.
Now, one final step. Tapes are a dying technology. Why shouldn't I be able to pay someone to record The Office at home, encode it as an AVI file, and send me the file over the internet? The effect is exactly the same as bringing over a tape, which in turn is the same as recording it myself - I'm just delegating the work to someone else who's better at it, or at least more willing to do it. The fact that I'm paying is irrelevant; he might just as well decide to do it for free, and in fact that's what happens every day on the internet.
We can extend the same logic to music that's broadcast over the radio: I can record the song myself and listen to it again, so therefore I should be allowed to have someone else record it and send me a copy. It's nothing that I couldn't do myself, and there's no sensible reason to force me to do it myself when someone else is willing to do the work for me.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.