Slashdot Mirror
IsoHunt Settles With MPAA, Will Shut Down And Pay Up to $110 Million
hypnosec writes "The MPAA and Gary Fung, owner of IsoHunt.com, have settled their case out of court, with the torrent indexing site closing as part of the deal. The judge presiding over the MPAA vs. IsoHunt.com case, Jacqueline Chooljian, canceled the hearing which was planned after she was informed that both the parties have settled outside court. 'The website isoHunt.com today agreed to halt all operations worldwide in connection with a settlement of the major movie studios' landmark copyright lawsuit against the site and its operator Gary Fung' reads the press release."
Only a few days after the MPAA was accosted by the judge for seeking damages several times the total worth of isoHunt: "But if you strip him of all his assets — and you’re suggesting that a much lesser number of copyright infringements would accomplish that, where is the deterrence by telling the world that you took someone’s resources away because of illegal conduct entirely or 50 times over?" Still, the settlement seems unfair: The MPAA has asked the court for $110 million, when the MPAA itself admitted that isoHunt only has $5 or $6 million. So much for the optimism for isoHunt's successor.
The more will slip through your fingers.
The best torrent search engine ever will never bow to this kind of bullying crap. Long live Google!
That certainly was a very confusing farewell message...
Wow, so he tricked them into settling for $110 million when he only has about $5 mil or so in the company. TROLLED! Correct me if I'm wrong but settlements outside of court cannot be converted to wage garnishments, right? He definitely tricked them pretty well.
And that is why you go for fully decentralized services, kids.
Ezekiel 23:20
Sue for profit! we don't need to make good content anymore *cheers*
I think the release was remiss in not naming the other sites for *cough* comparison's sake..
What is irritating is that people fold. How can others avoid this problem? A properly configured Tor hidden service run by someone who is more technically competent? Then utilize advertising and accept only bitcoins combined with donations of bitcoins? I'm not convinced silk road and freedom hosted folded because of some technical fault in Tor. What I do believe is we need a solution that is per-configured to be more secure by default with instructions on how to utilize it safely for publishing. Changes to the configuration should not result in the owner/operator of said hidden service to become compromised either.
MPAA demanding money for imaginary damage done to imaginery property? Pay them with monopoly money.
110 million might never be paid out, but I'm sure the MPAA will use it as a PR move. They will spin it as "If you run a site, you will owe 100's of millions". I'm not sure I support either side in this. As cliche as it sounds two wrongs don't make a right. We have copyright laws and whether they are ridiculous or not if you break them there's a chance you will have to pay. I'd much rather see true discussion and debate on the topic than the constant one side or the other won the battle argument. If this continues this way it will be like the war on drugs. Each side wins battles and neither wins the war.
Sent from my TARDIS
The Net worth of the company is irrelevant in determining the damages. If a guy in a in a factory fresh Porsche Cayenne SUV runs you down and leaves you paralyzed, are you any less paralyzed if it had been a barely runing 30 year old Ford Econoline? No. The worth of IsoHunt might be relvant to determining punitive damages, but they didn't seem to be at that stage yet.
isohunt was a terrible website, glad to see it'll be removed both from search results and the internet as a whole.
You will be missed.
If I couldn't find what I wanted on TPB, then ISOhunt was my next stop.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Still, the settlement seems unfair: The MPAA has asked the court for $110 million, when the MPAA itself admitted that isoHunt only has $5 or $6 million.
The legal system does not hand out punishment on the basis of whether or not the defendant can pay for it; It hands it out on the basis of how much harm was done. If you run someone over and they're a cripple for the rest of their life, the Judge doesn't say "Well, you only got $20 and a cracker... so give me the $20 and we're even." You are fined and jailed on the basis of how much pain and suffering that person endured.
Unfortunately, the law says that every time you share an MP3, god kills $150,000 worth of kittens. Statutory damages don't allow for any discretion on the part of the judge. Thank Congress for that.
And the argument can also be made that proportional damages levied against very wealthy individuals or corporations is good practice, though it doesn't often happen. Fining people for dumping millions of gallons of toxic waste into the ocean the maximum $50,000 per infraction means they just video tape the whole thing, send in the tape and a check for $50,000 because it's cheaper than going to court, and much, much cheaper than disposing of the waste properly. But alas, that is not how the law is written.
The system is totally broken, but let's endeavor to be specific in our criticism of it... rather than simply saying "Oh that's unfair!" ... Fairness is relative. Justice shouldn't be.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
That might kind of work. Another method that's proven to work is called "Netflix", aka "Amazon Prime". You want them to spend a few million dollars making something cool for you to watch, you pony up ninety-nine cents. You get what you want, the costs are covered and everyone is happy. Plus, that way you're not a free-loading scumbag
Alternatively, don't pay even 99 cents. Instead, download MythTV, set it to automatically record your favorite actors and shows, and watch pretty much whatever you want, whenever you want, at no cost.
Where the fuck did ISOHunt get $110 million?
For every site they take down, hundreds more will pop up.
This is just a scare tactic. $110 Million? The company only had $5 Million in assets. This is all show. They will never actually get $110 Million. Ever.
IANAL, and perhaps I'm missing something obvious here.
What power does a US court have over a Canadian national running a website operating in Canada?
Guess what happens after your contingency shyster wins a case against someone you can't collect from?
He sues you for his 40% because he wrote the contract that way. Collecting is your problem.
Kill all the lawyers.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
ISOhunt had 5-6 million dollars - presumably from hosting ads along with links?
That makes the "we weren't hosting any infringing content ourselves" defense, which I've always been sympathetic toward, somewhat inconsequential.
The fact that the site (owners) profited to the tune of multiple millions of dollars by facilitating copyright infringement kind of rubs me the wrong way. Had they done it for not much more than hosting fees I'd be more aligned with them receiving a "shut down, now" penalty.
And before I'm called a corporate shill, I fight the mess that copyright laws have become by boycotting the big content producers. They haven't made one single cent from me in many years, nor have I pirated any of their content. I've learned that I just don't need what they're selling.
Unfortunately, the law says that every time you share an MP3, god kills $150,000 worth of kittens. Statutory damages don't allow for any discretion on the part of the judge. Thank Congress for that.
Not true. 17 USC 504(c):
Statutory Damages.— ... [T]he copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just...
(1)
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200....
They mean they have agreed to declare bankruptcy.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
> Do you think people who use an antenna are also free loading scumbags?
No, in fact I suggested using a DVR to record shows and movies to watch them whenever you please.
I replied to someone suggesting that a good plan would be for someone to put up an ad supported site serving movies they'd ripped off.
On TV, the ads actually pay for the movie to be made. Doesn't that make a little more sense?
> the most popular stuff that gets torrented is point blank not available from those sources
Let's check and see:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Grosse_Pointe_Blank/1153034?locale=en-US
Oh, you said "most popular". Is the most popular movie of 2012 available on Netflix?:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Avengers/70217913?locale=en-US
How about so far this year? The most popular movie of the 2013 summer movie season is "Iron Man 3":
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Iron_Man_3/70243360?locale=en-US
> As long as "whatever you want" doesn't include cable shows, overseas shows [most of which are available on cable], or (depending where you live) shows on
> lesser networks such as the CW [also available on cable], then sure, PC-based DVR is awesome and free.
Yeah, if you want cable TV, get cable TV. There are about 100 movies on cable each month, so by plugging that cable TV into a DVR you can pretty much watch whatever you want whenever you want. That's what I do.
To spend less, we're considering getting rid of cable and instead spending 90% less on Amazon Prime, or maybe Netflix, along with free services that index Hulu, the network's web sites, etc. Going that route, we can watch most any show we want, any time we want, but we'd be a season behind for many of them. I'm cool with that. My wife may want to see the shows sooner, and for her it might be worth paying for cable to see them immediately. We'll see what we decide.
How much of that $5-6 million will go to the musicians who, presumably/supposedly, have been losing income through the activities of ISOhunt ? Call me cynical, but I suspect that none of it will. The money will be used to hand out bonuses to MPAA employees & lawyers and the rest to fund future MPAA activities.
Will someone please remind me what the ultimate purpose of the MPAA is supposed to be.
I though torrent indexing was legal.
Ownership of "regular property" is just as pretend as anything else. It's based on laws we created with the protection of our legal/justice system. Without that anyone could take your home that wants to and has the physical power to do it.
apparently...
"BUY THIS DOMAINThe domain isonews.com may be for sale by its owner!"
Sounds possible that maybe the mpaa and isohunt came to a "settlement" where as the mpaa is actually giving isohunt money to say they agreed to pay a massive amount because the mpaa thinks this will discourage other torrents from forming and present torrents from fighting the mpaa? Might sound out there, but think about what this industry has done in the passed and their underhanded tatics. Now tell me it's out of the realm of possibility of them doing this.
extradition
How does a pirate site rack so much worth?
admitted that isoHunt only has $5 or $6 million.
i remember using ISO hunt a few years ago to look for Linux distros. good times
I bet part of the insane figure is to punish anyone who they owe money to for daring to give credit to them.
That and the whole thing about making an example out of them.
Why is it that so many people here rant about their rights, and yet treat intellectual property rights like they are utterly disposable. Weird double standard there.
Pay them in iDollars.
"Cats like plain crisps"
How did lawyers track down the owner of Isohunt? I couldn't track down the owners of sites like that even if I wanted to. Is it that hard these days for someone in a sensitive position to stay anonymous, thus shielding them from the oldy worldy bully lawyers?
gosgog:
Here we go again....its time to rid the U.S., U.K. & the rest of the world from PATENTS.
As far as the Movie Industry & the Music Industry go, they are both a couple of Industries finanacial close behind, Oil, Guns, Drugs(illegal kind & legit) and Food Distribution. Its time that in at least U.S. U.K. and many other "Civilized?" countries, JUDGES realized that they are appointed to serve the general public's laws, not Corporation Law, which is perpetrated to make the legal proffession rich.
And NO, I'm not a fucking socialist or communist. I just believe the Internet was set up to provide, information, education and help for the world and that every country should recognize this as fact and stop messing with it.