Slashdot Mirror


Torrentspy Disables Searching For US IPs

dr_strang writes "Torrent indexing site Torrentspy.com appears to have disabled torrent searches for IPs that originate in the United States. Instead of a results page, users are directed to this page, which states: 'Torrentspy Acts to Protect Privacy. Sorry, but because you are located in the USA you cannot use the search features of the Torrentspy.com website. Torrentspy's decision to stop accepting US visitors was NOT compelled by any Court but rather an uncertain legal climate in the US regarding user privacy and an apparent tension between US and European Union privacy laws."

20 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. tor by wpegden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did someone say tor?

    1. Re:tor by torrentami · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah, I'm not entirely sure what the proprietors of torrent spy are actually stealing since they merely provide links to torrent files. and by innovate I mean create better and more efficiently designed web sites that allow you to search for torrents that span multiple sites, add easy to use ratings and comments systems, and integrate social networking features.

    2. Re:tor by dmatos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pray tell, then, what does one have to do to qualify as a documentarian? Tell the truth? Can you point out the parts in his movie where he doesn't tell the truth? Be unbiased? Can you point me to a single documentary that does not contain any editorial bias? Can you point me to anything published ever that does not contain any bias?

      Michael Moore is a documentarian. He creates documentaries. His documentaries have a very strong left wing bias. The trick is in recognizing this factor, and judging his films accordingly.

      That said, I have to agree with the grandparent poster. The US medical system is scary. The fact that it is possible to have to go into Bankruptcy because of a medical condition scares the fuck out of me. I'm with Moore's relatives. I would not set foot into the US without additional medical insurance. In fact, for the most part, I've been steering clear of the US as much as possible. Ever since that whole right of Habeas Corpus was suspended.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
  2. In other news.. by micksam7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Non-US proxy usage skyrockets globally.

  3. Re:The Obvious Reason by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I also wonder if I have to start worrying about other sites blocking American users simply out of fear & safety from the United States MPAA/RIAA run court system?

    That would potentially be fantastic. If we can make Congress understand that excessive copyright and patent regimes put the U.S. at a technological / competitive disadvantage, that's part of the war in getting change.

    Of course, Congress might be just as likely to respond in some insane, drunken, counter-productive way as well, which is why I used the word "problematic" above.

  4. Re:The Obvious Reason by kebes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You bring up a very valid point, what we have here is reverse censorship. Because of the freedoms (freedom to sue for losses) offered in the US, these restrictions are imposed.
    What? "Freedom to sue for losses" ? And does equal rights decrease freeom because landowners no longer have "the Freedom to own slaves" ? How do you reconcile "freedom of speech" against the "freedom to censor" ?

    Get real. Just because you add the word "freedom" to the start of a sentence doesn't mean you are describing a real freedom. US users are not being blocked because the US is "too free." They are being blocked because US laws meant to protect copyright holders may require logging and disclosure of logs. This is in conflict with privacy policies.

    There is a disagreement here about what "rights" are more important (ease of tracking legal violators vs. privacy). To characterize US laws in this instance as being about "freedom" is disingenuous.
  5. Re:Time for wiki-torrent by dslauson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone create a privatized wiki-torrent where people can put up their own torrents. That way you can never be sued cause you're not responsible for the contents.
    Ummm, there's really no such thing as "can never be sued because of". In the U.S., anybody can sue anybody for anything. Sure, maybe a case will hold no water and will get thrown right out of court, but you'd still probably have a pretty damn good lawyer on retainer before you try something like this in the States, because somehow I don't see the **AA saying, "Oh, well. The guy's got a Wiki. There's nothing we can do."
  6. Re:Time for wiki-torrent by brunascle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how would that be any different than sites like torrentspy? they're basically just search engines. they dont host the content, and some dont even host the .torrent files.

  7. Re:The Obvious Reason by Applekid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all, who cares about the Constitutionally protected rights to control distribution? Obviously we here do, and the ability to ammend the constitution to correct problems was built in for a reason.

    The real problem is that Congress (and States' Congresses, most members with aspirations for greater office) are in the pockets of industry and would dare not impose changes to the patents or copyrights that may make their purse-holders angry.

    Perhaps if they weren't shills for MAFIAA we'd have a freedom more free. Perhaps we'll never know for sure.
    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  8. Re:The Obvious Reason by capnchicken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; The pretense of this right is to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts not to protect a failed and obsolete business model.

    --
    A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
  9. Re:The Obvious Reason by snowraver1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Get real. Just because you add the word "freedom" to the start of a sentence doesn't mean you are describing a real freedom. US users are not being blocked because the US is "too free." They are being blocked because US laws meant to protect copyright holders may require logging and disclosure of logs. This is in conflict with privacy policies.
    My point was that in the US, individuals are "free" to sue someone if they believe that they were wronged by the defendant. Because the RIAA is free to sue people for downloading they have had some judges compell some orginizations to basically incriminate themselves and thier users. So basically, what started as a freedom to sue for losses, turned into a clusterf*ck requiring websites to either: a) Incriminate themselves and thier users b) Cut the US out of the picture and carry on business as usual.
    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  10. Re:The Obvious Reason by adrianbaugh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So if you feel strongly enough about it, kick out the government and elect one better suited to your wishes. Oh, I forgot, although you get the choice between 2 parties both of them are almost exactly the same...

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  11. Re:This is a good thing. by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you get several failed requests before a successful one? The tor exit node would have to be outside the US, so I imagine there must be many failed queries for every success.

    Thanks to a cultural obsession with (fighting) child porn in the US, I would expect just the opposite - No sane American would allow exit connections unless they had high enough 3rd party traffic to claim basically no control over or knowledge of the vast majority of the content (ie, an ISP, and they rarely give anything away).

    And if the real feds don't ruin you, Dateline will, regardless of the actual facts. I can just about hear the announcement: "Up next, the newest threat to your children: We put 250 megs of fake child porn on a website, and found we could retrieve it anonymously with a new program for terrorists called Tor. We've hunted down, had fired, and forwarded evidence to the DA about the beast running this smut ring, known perversely as 'Exit Node'.

  12. Re:Tor:Popularity Games. by computational+super · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

    Buildings with security guards are rarely robbed or broken into. A naive building owner may say, "you know, there haven't been any break-ins in years - I'm wasting my money paying the security guards to guard this place!" when in fact it was the deterrent of the security guard that prevented the break-in in the first place. Civil liberties (such as privacy safeguards) are a bit like security guards - the fact that you have them means you probably don't need them, but if you get rid of them, you'll want them back in a big hurry.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  13. I don't see what the big deal is... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Virtually everything that is legally copyable for distribution and is available via bittorrent can be found without the need for a dedicated torrent search engine anyways because a link to a torrent is often available right on the creator's website. At least, that's my experience. I use bittorrent fairly regularly but I've never once needed to resort to using a torrent search engine to find what I wanted.

  14. Re:The Obvious Reason-Set my P2P free! by Sunburnt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah yes. The right to be entertained being denied to Americans. Next up, the government stops you from getting fat.

    Know you were joking, but that is the case. In NY and a lot of other places, the government is banning trans fats.

    Huh? You can still get as fat as you like on all the starches, sugars, and saturated fat you like. Trans fats are a manufacturing convenience that is strongly and indisputedly linked to heart disease at a far greater rate than conventional "bad fats." This has been known since the early '90s, and many manufacturers have voluntarily shifted away before the series of bans, likely to prevent lawsuits.

    Trans fats are like lead paint: sure, there are some neat things you can do with it, but you can do the same things at a negligibly higher cost without needlessly harming people, so it's hard to justify having it out there.

    --
    Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
  15. Re:No surprise by Anspen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, many European nations have an explicit right to privacy. Which is different from the US (yes there is a constitutional right to privacy but it is implicit, which means it tends to be unenforced in rulings). While the government has more leeway than private companies they are mostly subject to similar rules (i.e. they can't simply share information between, say the IRS and welfare, you need an explicit law to allow it.)

  16. Re:The Obvious Reason by TClevenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Simple: automatically release works to the public domain after a limited time of protection. That's the way it originally was supposed to be: an artist is encouraged to create a work because they have a time-limited protected period to make money from it, and the expiration of that protection encourages the artist to continue creating. Now, an artist can sit on one successful work and make a lifetime of money from it.

  17. Re:The Obvious Reason by miyako · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would say that wide distribution is far more important than money for true art. People don't create true works of art to lock up and only be viewed/listened to/etc. by those with money. True art is a message, and the more easly a message can be distribtued the more it encourages the production of art.
    Someone who makes music or paintings or whatever else just for the money is a craftsman, not an artist.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
  18. Re:The Obvious Reason by capnchicken · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Promoting Science and the useful arts =/= Payday for Hollywood!!

    One method is to secure the rights of the content produced to the producer for a limited time (as it is described).

    The original intent is lost because the method used to rectify the intent is what is being focused on.

    Authors, painters, musicians will always create. This protection is something new in the whole scope of creativity and art, but instead of being fairly compensated for their contributions to society, it has become another way to exploit a buck.

    The original clause has mutated into the entertainment industry screaming "WHERES MAH CHECK?!".

    If a media corporation could make a nickel everytime you uttered a movie quote they would do it, as a corporation is defined as entity that lives only to make profit for the shareholders. It's just unenforceable and a poor business model. So when an innovation in copying and distribution makes old business models based around copying and distribution obsolete why should they not be abandoned?

    There was no sudden influx in the poor houses for starving artists or lack of content when the printing press, analog copying, VHS, digital copying, the Internet, or distributed distribution was born. There is more noise to signal, I'll concede that. But I refuse to recognize arguments involving poor or inadequate compensation.

    --
    A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)