Slashdot Mirror
IsoHunt Petitions Canadian Court For Copyright Blessing
A Cow writes "As an act of self-defense, the popular BitTorrent site isoHunt has decided to file a petition to ask the Court of British Columbia to confirm that isoHunt — and sister sites Torrentbox and Podtropolis — do not infringe copyright. isoHunt owner Gary explains to TorrentFreak: 'Our petition summarizes BitTorrent technology, its open nature and a whole ecosystem of websites and operators that has developed around it, that CRIA does not own copyright to all files distributed over BitTorrent or on isoHunt websites, and we seek legal validation that we can continue to innovate within this emerging BitTorrent ecosystem on the Internet.'"
Yes, but you can't help but think that its interesting that the general public thinks that the commercial system for
media distribution sucks ass, and has developed not just one but several ways to illegally distribute content.
The laws on all this cyber stuff are totally wrong. It should be stated quite simply in the law that:
If you provide a service, such as a communication service, a file transfer service, a web-based service, or any kind of Internet-based service, and someone else who is using that service is doing something illegal or something they shouldn't be doing, then that someone else should be liable and you should NOT.
Think of it this way. You are a state. You build roads and freeways. Someone speeding along those roads gets in an accident and kills someone. Is it your fault or theirs? Theirs!
Another example: You are a state. You build roads and freeways. Someone is transporting illegal drugs around in a vehicle, using your roads and freeways to do so. Is it your fault or theirs? Theirs!
So why should a service that is based on the Internet be any different? Why should those providing the infrastructure be liable for bad things people do with that infrastructure? If infrastructure-providers were supposed to be liable because they somehow facilitate something bad, then why don't we go back to being cave-men, because anything and everything that we have in the world can be used for some bad purpose.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
I think what he meant by "illegally distribute content" wasn't referring to the means of distribution. What the poster meant might have been illegal in the sense of distributing that specific content without a legal right to do so. There's nothing illegal about a blank CD, but buying that same disc with copied music on it is almost certainly illegal.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
My college's anti-getting-their-ass-sued-by-the-RIAA propaganda has already melted the minds of a lot of people around here to thinking that any kind of file sharing, regardless of content, is illegal.
Agreed. As a new college freshman, I've met plenty of people who had BitTorrent on their computer and deleted it as to avoid any lawsuits. I figure keeping a copy of Transmission on-hand is fine so long as I don't go downloading illegal stuff.
wow, you didn't educate them?
This is how ignorance leads to government license to criminalize things (as in cold hard time)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
This is an interesting move - good on them! You could easily argue that CDR and DVDR are predominantly used for piracy, but they openly sell them at all the major gorcey and department stores. Obviously becuase they have other legitimate uses too - just like bittorrent.
I think media companies are shooting themselves in the foot, in the long run, by cracking down on Piracy.
Here's what's happened with me-- as I grew up, got to the real world, and started making more money, the cost of buying has been fewer and fewer %points of the amount I make. I feel less and less urge to download. All they'd have to do is offer a direct download service, or pay-for-and-be-reimbursed-some-for-using-bittorrent on their login-requiring tracker, and I'd probably just do that.
Therefor, the real thing they should be fighting for is a larger, more stable middle class of America, so that more people have disposable income, whatever actions on their part that entails. The easy solution would be to give everybody welfare checks, but then we'd become the Romans, and everybody knows how that worked out for them...
Second, for their benefit AND America's, they should focus less on fighting piracy in certain markets-- or risk being left behind when these markets take off (China, India, Russia [if their market ever takes off] and any other lower-income-no-middle-class-countries).
Why? An Italian man I met while in Florence had the absolute best English of almost any foreigners-speaking-English I've met in my [short] life. I asked him how he learned to speak so well, so fluently, and coherently-- he said he eventually stopped watching the English movies with Italian dubbing (terrible voice acting, the English voice acting is so much better he was saying), and went ahead and learned enough of it by watching American Hollywood movies, that he began switching the subtitles off, and simply listened to the dialog and eventually figured it out. What better way for them to increase their market share than let the production quality of their movies (and lets be honest, Hollywood films ARE the best, simply no one else has the capital or skill to pull off mass production of multi-hundred-million dollar movies like Matrix, Transformers, Batman, etc. on the scale that we do) speak for themselves, and once you've got the fish hooked and grown, you can start charging. Until that time though, the spread of American ideals and values (although contrary to the way our government currently operates-- privacy, freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to run business and oust a competitor through sheer technical superiority and efficiency of business-- (for instance, doesn't happen in China, you've got to know who to pay off and how much, when, etc. if you want to have a chance at starting a company)) would be far more valuable to them as a multi-national media corporation. (Because people will begin to see that free-market economics, freedom of speech, freedom to vote, are superior to the alternate methods of doing business and running a country; that we would be perpetuating the "great America" idealogy, "I can make my fortune and future there and then bring my family, and all will be well with me and my family", "democracy", as in a country lead by people elected (usually) by the majority of the people, and similar values, which the furthering of in the world would be good for America, would be spread to the nations and we'd have many more allies, and many fewer enemies.)
Potentially more valuable to our government as well. I would argue that the government should pay Hollywood a stipend for
a). them turning a blind eye to piracy external to English speaking countries and
b). a set number of propogandic films proclaiming the wonders of a free society, free economy, free competition, freedom to love who you choose, not who your parents say, and the benefits that brings to the every day citizens (a middle class, the American dream, a house, etc.), on the grounds that it's good for the government and security of western countries to bring them to our side-- from the bottom up. Want a great way to fight militant Islam? Torture isn't quite it, and force like in Iraq (though it definitely will work in the long run) is expensive, difficult to do, and leaves the surrounding countries envious, bitte
But I'm hoping that in trying this case, the court takes into account the media levy and clarifies the whole thing, pretty far on the side of the consumer.
Unlikely given their current strategy. They aren't trying to justify Canadians accessing copyrighted content without fee, but rather are essentially saying to CRIA, "Hey, guys, we're on your side. Just point out any torrents pointing to copyrighted material, and we'll take them right down".
But CRIA doesn't want to do that. Perhaps they feel it would be easier to just shut down isoHunt completely, rather than having to monitor it and report every single infraction they find.
isoHunt would win this one in a rational world. They host torrents, not copyrighted material. Not all torrents point to copyrighted material, and they not only stated, but demonstrated, a willingness to remove torrents which do point to copyrighted material.
The only argument CRIA could make is that isoHunt should be responsible for policing the torrents themselves, and have been negligent in this duty.
Loose lips lose spit.
Wrong. The equivalent analogy would be the Postal Service being held accountable for dealers sending drugs through the mail.
By your logic why are drug traffickers held accountable?
A drug trafficker actually owns and then distributes the drug.
In your analogy, a torrent site would be like you walking up to a guy on the street, asking him "you know where I can buy some weed?" and he tells you "oh.. there's a guy over there I think.. he might not be there anymore... but there's a bunch of these guys around.. umm.. maybe that guy over there possibly." while pointing. He's not moving or selling the drugs, he is referring you to them.
Furthermore, it is the not the explicit intent of these sites to aid in 'finding drugs', but rather to aid in helping people find what they ask for and relaying the information as to where it is.
Get it?
Ummm, you do realize the story is about Isohunt trying to convince a Canadian COURT, not the RIAA, right? The RIAA is totally irrelevant in this story. The basic question is, is IsoHunt facilitating a crime by hosting torrents? The way to answer that question is simple. Go look. The rest is common sense.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
IsoHunt has no way of knowing if:
1) the torrent contains what it says on the box
2) if the files in question are protected by copyright
3) if the holders of the copyright object to such distribution.
Only if all 3 of the above is true, the distribution of the files in the torrent might be considered illegal (and only by a court).
IsoHunt has no legal basis to determine any of the above. The copyright holders must monitor the files and notify IsoHunt of any discovered torrents with potentially infringing material.
They need to provide:
1) proof of content (actual content of the files in the torrent)
2) proof of copyright (papers that show that they are the copyright holders or their representatives in this case)
3) takedown notice (in writing)
After that is delivered (on paper, with proper signatures, via snail main), IsoHunt can take down the torrent as soon as possible. Due to limited staff time that might take up to two weeks. :)
So if I walk up to a guy on a street, and I ask him "where does John Smith live, I'm going to shoot him in the head with this gun", it's perfectly ok for him to tell me, and he shouldn't be held accountable for anything. Is that right?
While I would tell you that, yes, that man does not have a moral obligation to protect John Smith from you; I also think it is alarming that you bring murder of a human in analogy with potential losses of money.
life>money. You may not agree, and if so, I would pity you.