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.'"
We have since tried to come to an understanding, but just as with the MPAA in the US, they ignored our offers of cooperation by the take down of .torrent links to their content files, so long as they provide sufficient identification," Gary Fung [of isoHunt] told TorrentFreak.
Does Canada even have a notice-and-takdown law in effect?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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 idea that an intermediary trafficker can be held accountable for the files and data passing through it is disgusting. By this logic why aren't ISP's held accountable by law for child pornography passing through their servers? I hope IsoHunt succeeds in their endeavor and shows that government the flaw in their logic.
"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
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.
What are they trying to win? They afraid the courts are going to take away all their monopoly money one day?
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
I noticed they kind of act as though they represent the entire BitTorrent user base. I hope this doesn't cause more harm than good. On installing BitTorrent on a friend's computer, he asked "Is this legal"? 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. I hope this turns out well and doesn't backfire.
"...and has developed not just one but several ways to illegally distribute content."
what?
It's not the method that's illegal in the case of P2P, it's the content, for certain values of content. There's nothing illegal about Bittorrent itself.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
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
too bad that the movie industry/music industry have much deeper pockets and will keep spreading their propaganda - uneducating everybody on what filesharing is and isn't.
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
a cd with copied music isn't illegal if its your 1 backup copy of the album which is fair use if you bought the album legally
because we all know you only need one backup copy right?
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.
(Although I hate reading any post preceded by this acronym...) IANAL, but I was speaking from my understanding of Australian copyright law (since that's where I live). I forgot that "fair use" is much more liberal in most other countries. In Australia, fair use almost predates the record player (I know, I exaggerate a little...). Our copyright law is so antiquated as to probably be completely inapplicable today.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
(Although I hate reading any post preceded by this acronym...) IANAL, but I was speaking from my understanding of Australian copyright law (since that's where I live). I forgot that "fair use" is much more liberal in most other countries. In Australia, fair use almost predates the record player (I know, I exaggerate a little...). Our copyright law is so antiquated as to probably be completely inapplicable today.
no, it's quite "modern", go read the fine print in AUSFTA
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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
Yes, in Canada there is an extra levy on blank optical media. This levy is basically a "you-might-be-a-pirate" tax. So you can't be caught for copyright infringement if it's for personal use on discs you paid for.
It's more of a gray area than anything, right now in Canada. Bill C61 was going to explicitly legalize backing up(if you back up in a certain way), while also explicitly outlawing many other things (including many forms of backing up that might bypass so-called "digital locks").
What's the value of information that you don't know?
Sure, but the RIAA seems to have no problem with performing DoS attacks on the sites. Yet they cry foul whenever anyone hacks the RIAA's site.
Legality has never stopped the record companies before.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
yeah, after re-reading that, I think you're right. It was just phrased in a funny way. I thought he meant to imply that any method other than the commercial one was illegal, but that would be a pretty silly thing to say ;-)
What's the value of information that you don't know?
But for us to really understand, you need to use a car analogy.
No-one was suggesting that. It was just a tool that could be (and often is) used to illegally distribute content. That, as you pointed out, doesn't make it illegal.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Fair use Canada? Or fair use USA? And just for the hell of it. Please define the boundaries of this "fair use" so that others may not cross it.
We don't have a clear legal definition of fair use in Canada. In this situation of recorded audio we have "personal use" which is defined in the Copyright Act. It includes things like making a mix CD for the car or loaning a friend a CD so they can copy it (really!). For these privileges we pay a levy on blank media.
Damn those pesky terrorists
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"
"It's not the method that's illegal in the case of P2P, it's the content, for certain values of content. There's nothing illegal about Bittorrent itself."
Does the same apply to the variants that hide the payload as well as who's on either end?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Maybe it would be a different story if, whenever you saw a car, there was a 99.99% chance it was being used for a bank robbery.
I think its sad we live in a time where someone has to petition a court to say "we are legit".
:(
Copyright laws have allowed greedy business execs go on witch hunts not seen since the Inquisition.
RIAA, MPAA and ESA go around bullying anyone they can trying to extort money, patent trolls filing lawsuits left right and center. It is truly a depressing age
Sincerly,
IsoHunt user
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Oversimplification of copyright law, which is based on a fairly complex statutory framework, is a dangerous thing.
In Canada, Part VIII of the Copyright Act provides a limited exemption to copying music only and only to an "audio recording medium" (i.e. media which, if blank, would be subject to the levy). The reason there's no levy on an iPod is that they're not considered "audio recording media" and, therefore, copying your music to such a medium constitutes copyright infringement, unless you're licensed (i.e. you downloaded from iTunes).
There is absolutely no private copying exception for downloading videos, and don't even think about calling it "fair use" -- in Canada, that concept doesn't exist. What we do have is "fair dealing", with a number of limited, listed exemptions much narrower than our southern neighbours enjoy.
Yeah but nobody's ever been sued for these sort of things in Canada.
CRIA even went on record saying they like things the way they are, that they just collect on CDs. (I believe they do collect on DVDs as well that pretty much means I'm going to download movies too because I've pretty much paid for them)
~1$ a CD (else I can't see why a CD and two DVDs both sell for 1$.) is worth it to me for a bunch of songs, don't you think?
The RIAA is totally irrelevant in this story.
It's not even in the same country.
>>Please define the boundaries of this "fair use" so that others may not cross it.
Fine: I own the bits on the DVD or CD I bought and I may make as many copies as I like of my property.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Yes we have that here too on blank dvd's and cd's but overhere it's more of a look !!!! we forgot to make money of that - kinda tax ...
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
Yes, in Canada there is an extra levy on blank optical media. This levy is basically a "you-might-be-a-pirate" tax. So you can't be caught for copyright infringement if it's for personal use on discs you paid for.
I know what you mean, but it's really important to be precise when describing the levy since it has a big impact on how the new copyright bill could be drafted. In essence, what you are saying is what the recording industry *wants* you to think. Because they goofed up badly years ago and they want a new law to fix it for them.
The copyright act says, in part, "...the act of reproducing... [a musical work] ... for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright"
That's right. The thing they gave up for the levy was that private copying *does not constitute copyright infringement*. It's not a "get out of jail card for pirates". It means, explicitly and clearly, that you are allowed to make private copies of music. It is completely legal. And it should be encouraged!
The very important implication here is that amendments like Bill C61 attempt to make it impossible for us to copy music, when it is, in fact, our right to do so. As I said, the recording industry screwed up extremely badly here. And I know the levy isn't popular. But that 21 cents per CD gives me the right to copy any music I want to. It doesn't sound so bad to me.
Admitedly, there should be provisions for people who use large numbers of blank media for non-music purposes to opt out. This is a weakness of the levy.
"We don't have a clear legal definition of fair use in Canada. "
We don't have "fair use" in Canada, we have something called "fair dealing". And although it was poorly defined, a Supreme Court case a few years ago (2004) clarified things significantly, including the interepretation that fair dealing is a user RIGHT that complements and balances the rights copyright holders have. Here's a quote from the wikipedia page:
"The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively. ... 'User rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.'"
They actually got it! As far as I'm concerned, that statement ought to be framed. And they listed 6 factors to evaluate in terms of whether something constituted fair dealing, whereas there was hardly anything previously. So, there's been some progress. Well, up until Bill C-61 !#!@#$!# it up, but in that respect there's been progress too.
Yes here in slovenia we have a levy on everything (no exceptions). .. etc etc.. because you just might copy an mp3 on an Canon EOS flash card.
This includes: CD-R,DVD-R,iPOD,Hard Disk, VCR, GSM, GPS (because they can play mp3's), PC's (because they have disk in it), Mac's (because they have disk in it), Printers (because you could have printed some copyrighted lyrics), Photo scanners, fax machines, wrist watches (with disk in it), cameras, photo only cameras, flash cards, USB sticks, routers, Wii, Consoles
I think this is just abuse of money .. why should i pay "SAZAS" (slovenian RIAA) money for a GPS receiver because it "can" play mp3's ? or why should i pay some tax on a DVD-R because i might copy a copyrighted content on it ? or perhaps copy whole album of mp3's to Canon EOS 40D flash card ? ... so it kinda legalizes the right to copy anything and put it on the net .. or private use.
If i pay for this kind of shit i expect something in return - i then have all the rights to copy anything because i payed for it
So, what you're saying is that copyright infringers should be given the benefit of current technology to speed the illegal distribution of content they do not own, but the actual copyright holders should be forced to use the most ancient form of currently available technology, thus allowing as much time as possible for the illegal distribution of content?
Forcing the content owners to send out snail mail letters. You're not even going to let them fax sigend copies, and you'll allow the site owners to take whatever time they want to remove infringing content? Wow!
So, I guess you think the same way RIAA et al think? Take all you can and leave no survivors. Here, I always thought that two wrongs don't make a right, but you seem to be on the flip side of that coin. It's opinions like this that hurt the OSS movement and also the BitTorrent providers. With friend like this who needs enemies. We can be our own worst enemy.
While I say it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to enforce his rights, I think that they should be given as much help as is reasonable, given the vastness of the internet and illegal downloading ability it has. It's one thing to burn copies of a copyrighted work for a few friends, but it's another thing to allow the world to download them. However, copyright law needs a major overhaul. No one whose support matters is going to listen to those putting forth arguments like yours.
Bit torrent sites should be capable of detecting at least some infringing content, at least after it has been downloaded at least once. If a download passes through a torrent and it matches bit for bit with a known copyrighted work over the same time-slice, then the probability it is infringing has a positive correlation. Such a file could then be monitored on subsequent downloads over different time-slices, and if it is a 100% match it should be removed.
Furthermore, on what content should be proactively removed should be dependent on whether or not it is available for purchase or not, or is pre-distribution. For example, a torrent of an episode of the Daily show should not get the same protection as a copy of an unrelaesed stolen copy of a new Guns & Roses album. But still if the Daily Show people ask for a take down of such an episode, it should be honored, and honored going forward also. There's much more that could be said here, to create a balanced solution.
Yeah, you're right, I should have specified that I was talking about audio discs.
However, in Canada downloading of copyrighted content is totally fine. It's the uploading that gets you into trouble. And unless you are only a leech (you asshole!), you automatically break that law by using Bittorrent for copyrighted content.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
The web interfaces DO house copyrighted content, since the torrent files are an IP object and subject to copyright. I is also the *only* thing they distribute, aside from the normal popup ad, which they have permission to re-distribute.
We give them full rights to distribute the the torrent files, and any attempt to prevent that could be considered restriction on free speech.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't really buy this argument. There are quite a few torrent websites focused on distribution of not-infringing content, usually free software, freeware, and creative commons and/or public domain art and music.
The main thing is that Bittorrent sites like IsoHunt may typically be used for copyright infringing content. But it the site itself does not typically host any infringing content at all. That's the reason why they're allowed to exist in the first place.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
This is de facto true in the US as well, where, while it may be technically illegal to download someone else's copyrighted IP, the RIAA will never sue for this. There is this fear that if they do, and the person in question already owned a copy of the IP in question ("I had the CD and it broke! Really! Here's the pre-download dated receipt!"), a precedent could be set making some forms of downloading legal, and make all those black-and-white "downloading music is stealing!" advertising campaigns much less clear to the average man on the street.
As in Canada, it's uploading that the (C|R)IAA goes after, because there is no "gray area" where it would be okay to give someone else's copyrighted IP away without their permission to do so.
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
Fox News was founded to make money. Many studies have been done and all concluded that the media does not align with the values of the viewers. One study claimed that 88% of the members of media viewed themselves as "liberal" while this number is only in the mid teens for all Americans. While I'm not going to look for a source, I'm sure everyone agrees with this general premise.
Fox News saw an opportunity and took it, and has become by far the #1 cable news channel. It is probably the only conservative slanting news outlet on cable. Just because it has a different slant than CNN ABC NBC and CBS does NOT mean it is "corrupt" and "misinformed." It had the highest numbers for both the RNC and DNC.
Claiming they are any more guilty of misinformation and corruption than other media outlets is flat out wrong. If you want evidence, even listen to members of your own political party. The left media was blatently pro-Obama and anti-Clinton during the primaries.
I've had a number of liberals say to me that Fox News had by far the most balanced coverage of the Democratic primaries compared to the DNC TV channels (CNN ABC NBC CBS).
Thank you. I've tried to say this in the past, but you've said it far better than I ever could. The hypocrisy among filesharers on this site (and everywhere) makes me sick sometimes.
Comment of the year
mod parent insightful, much better explanation.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
I also think it is alarming that you bring murder of a human in analogy with potential losses of money.
It's not an analogy, it's a clarifying simplification. The original argument was basically "Distributing information which enables people to do X is not wrong, because the wrongness of distributing information is independent of X." It's perfectly legitimate to substitute the most "wrong" thing imaginable for X to debate the merit of that statement. If a fundamental difference does exist between the substitution of "murder" and "copyright infringement", then the original argument has been invalidated due to the revealed dependence on X.
life>money. You may not agree, and if so, I would pity you.
life>money seems pretty substanceless for such a bold-sounding statement. Even if life is your only terminal value, money still has instrumental power to save it. So how much life is better than how much money? If you refuse to admit the existence of a conversion rate between the two, you limit your own potential to save life (and whatever else you care about enough to claim that it's ">money"), and I would pity you.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
WOW are you an astroturfer!
Registrant:
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
140 West Main Street
P.O. Box 568
Midland, MI 48640
US
Domain Name: MACKINAC.ORG
Here is the wikipedia entry for this "accurate and unbiased source"
The Mackinac Center for Policy Research is the largest conservative state-level policy think tank in the nation. It was established by the state's leading conservative activists to promote conservative free market, pro-business policies. Reflected by its board of directors and those funding its operations, the Center works to advance its policy objectives primarily though its publications, but has an increasing physical presence throughout the state. The Mackinac Center has moved beyond Michigan by hosting think tank schools that have lead to the franchising of its operations in nearly every state and 37 other countries
Congrats, you just linked to the central hub from which places like fox news and hannity glean their ever so accurate "information".
I'll believe the KKK's history on race relations before I believe a word they say.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Right, thank you for being more specific.
Here is the section of the copyright act that deals with copying for private use:
Damn those pesky terrorists