Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IsoHunt Petitions Canadian Court For Copyright Blessing

Posted by timothy on from the petition-to-the-courts-not-petition-online dept.

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.'"

5 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Sickening by Vertana · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Sickening by joocemann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

  2. The law has it all wrong. by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  3. Good move isohunt. by MrKneebone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Levy by Spc01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes here in slovenia we have a levy on everything (no exceptions).
    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 .. etc etc.. because you just might copy an mp3 on an Canon EOS flash card.

    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 ?
    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 it kinda legalizes the right to copy anything and put it on the net .. or private use.