|
|
|
IsoHunt ordered to take down torrents, site likely to close
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 1 April, 2010
Update: We have been contacted by Ira P. Rothken: "I am the lawyer for Isohunt in their litigation against the Major Movie Studios. There is no injunction in the Isohunt case. The parties are still briefing what an injunction, if any, will look like."
In a decision that will likely take down the giant torrent indexer, a judge has ordered IsoHunt to remove all torrents linking to infringing content.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
|
21. April 2010 @ 06:58 |
Link to this message
|
I can't believe a thread about ISO HUNT can inspire peeps to write essays. Public trackers suck so who cares if they go down including the most heavily watched piratebay. Protect yourself a little better by using newsgroups or a solid private tracker.
No time for Leap frog!!!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
21. April 2010 @ 09:25 |
Link to this message
|
i cant beleive how much argueing about interpol and politics took place in this thread.its suppose to be about isohunt being taken down.personally i have never used isohunt so i dont know if it was anygood or not & i dont like the thought of heaps of torrent sites being taken down.I've personally had no dealings with interpol and cant be bothered reading all the links.All i know about interpol is there a crime fighting organisation worldwide.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
Moderator
|
21. April 2010 @ 09:28 |
Link to this message
|
I had posted one simple link about Obama's Excutive Order regarding Interpol, which was my polite attempt at hinting at DaCount and bluedogs to give it a rest, ddp also requested the thread stays on topic, yet they have continued to wobble on ad finitum.
DaCount / bluedogs - last request to keep on topic..
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules *** |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. April 2010 @ 10:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by creaky:
I had posted one simple link about Obama's Excutive Order regarding Interpol, which was my polite attempt at hinting at DaCount and bluedogs to give it a rest, ddp also requested the thread stays on topic, yet they have continued to wobble on ad finitum.
DaCount / bluedogs - last request to keep on topic..
Give a troll a fish he will complain a bit, teach a troll to fish and the place will be stunk up.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
Senior Member
|
22. April 2010 @ 00:38 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by creaky:
I had posted one simple link about Obama's Excutive Order regarding Interpol,...
Yes, and I asked you a question regarding it. :D
DaCount is obviously insane and Bluedogs is mad reasoning with him.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. April 2010 @ 00:39
|
|
bluedogs
Member
|
22. April 2010 @ 01:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by creaky:
I had posted one simple link about Obama's Excutive Order regarding Interpol,...
Yes, and I asked you a question regarding it. :D
DaCount is obviously insane and Bluedogs is mad reasoning with him.
We were talking Australia, US has nothing to do with Australia
Yeah I have given up ya can't reason with stupidity
|
Moderator
|
22. April 2010 @ 05:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by creaky:
I had posted one simple link about Obama's Excutive Order regarding Interpol,...
Yes, and I asked you a question regarding it. :D
I didn't answer as this site isn't the place for such discussions. Google my username and you can find such answers if you so wish.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. April 2010 @ 05:22
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
15. February 2011 @ 21:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DaCount:
Zoolook, you are mistaken. Daniel_1 got it right on the nose. Torrents ARE illegal when you are illegally downloading something that does not belong to you.
The torrent protocol is NOT illegal... downloading files over the bit-torrent protocol is NOT illegal.
Quote:
It is only legal when you are downloading something in the public domain. So if you are downloading something your boss sent you to look at..fine. BUT if you are downloading the latest album or hot movie from hollywood, then sorry zoolook...you are illegal.
No need to apologise, you have agreed with me.
To re-itterate, niether the protocol or downloading over that protocol are illegal. The legality issue ONLY crops its head if you are uploading or downloading material to which you do not have the rights to do. I maintained this from minute one.
Quote:
Now being in that state you are subject to whatever laws your country has for or against this action. You are also subject to arrest by Interpol if they have signed onto the standard agreement as that allows another country to come after you for breaking it's laws for downloading illegal material.
I am not 100% sure of this, but I believe they are more interested in people who upload rather then download the material.
Quote:
Your refusal to understand this means that you will most likely be on the list of busted people at sometime in the future so be careful but let us know when you get busted so we can send you a few years supply of soap on a rope.
Your refusal to understand the fact that a protocol in itself cannot be illegal, is astounding.
If that were the case, since files could be illegally downloaded over HTTP would surely mean that web-browsing could equally be in the firing line.
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
15. February 2011 @ 21:41 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DaCount:
Um, Paula_X? In the US you are incorrect in your statement. The betamax decision of 1974 by the US Supreme Court does indeed allow you to make copies of what you own for your own personal use, you just cannot sell them or give them away. What the laws do is to make OWNING copyable programs illegal. IN short you can copy anything you legally own for personal use, you just cannot legally own the programs to do it. That way they are not stopping you from copying your personal items, just stopping you from getting the programs to allow you to do it. Twisted? You bet. Legal? Unquestionably. Devious and a spit in your face? Without a doubt. Can you change it? Not hardly.
Not too sure about DVD/BD, but as for games/software (obviously non public domain), if you took the time to read the licence agreement, you would see that (in general) you BUY the licence to use the software. The licence agreement provisions you to be supplied with one hard-copy of the software, and that you are NOT permitted to make backups. The agreement goes to great pains to point out that if your hard-copy becomes faulty, you are entitled to a replacement within a certain time-frame (a guarantee/warranty), and after this time, you will need to cover additional costs to get a replacement.
Tell me... when your firewall pops up a question saying "do you wish to allow jkfnsjkfns.exe to act as server", do you just click on "yes"?
|
Senior Member
|
16. February 2011 @ 00:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Tell me... when your firewall pops up a question saying "do you wish to allow jkfnsjkfns.exe to act as server", do you just click on "yes"?
....So what happened when you did it? :P
Just for reference, not all licence agreements are 100% legal depending on which country you're in.
In Oz you are definitely allowed to make backups of whatever as long you own it... regardless of whatever the so-called "licence agreement" says. You are certainly not allowed to sell them.
Also, whilst it may not be legal to mod your console in the UK (I think), it certainly is in Oz. MS may cripple your X360 and ban it online but it's still legal to mod. Actually I think MS' HD crippling may be subject to scrutiny here but no-one's bothered to take them to task. Before you assume I am talking out my backside, I assure you I was working in a mod shop at the time these legalities were being questioned. My boss even made a trip to the capital over it.
Oh yeah, the copyright mob tried to take an ISP to court not long ago here over their customers' illegal downloading of whatever... they lost that too. Why? They are not responsible for what their customers do with the service.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
16. February 2011 @ 01:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Oh yeah, the copyright mob tried to take an ISP to court not long ago here over their customers' illegal downloading of whatever... they lost that too. Why? They are not responsible for what their customers do with the service.
Exactly how it should be... In the same way a gun-smith should not be held liable if a customer decides to go on a rampage and shoot people, an ISP is not liable for users actions.
Saying that, like the gun-smith, an ISP should hand over relevant records PROVIDING they are presented with the correct court order, and not before! After all, they are bound by law (as with any business) to assist relevant agencies (does not include the entertainment industry) with documentary evidence to assist the investigation of crime.
|
Senior Member
|
16. February 2011 @ 20:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Oh yeah, the copyright mob tried to take an ISP to court not long ago here over their customers' illegal downloading of whatever... they lost that too. Why? They are not responsible for what their customers do with the service.
Exactly how it should be... In the same way a gun-smith should not be held liable if a customer decides to go on a rampage and shoot people, an ISP is not liable for users actions.
Saying that, like the gun-smith, an ISP should hand over relevant records PROVIDING they are presented with the correct court order, and not before! After all, they are bound by law (as with any business) to assist relevant agencies (does not include the entertainment industry) with documentary evidence to assist the investigation of crime.
That would make the entertainment industry (in the US)in breach of privacy considerations in regards to their ridiculously punitive civil court suites... interesting.
Guns? Unfortunately too many sad dickheads want to "go on a rampage". Is it a fair comparison comparing mass murder with file sharing? That's rather over the top. Besides your approach seems like locking the gate after the horse has bolted. :)
Edit: here is the REAL update. Just did a google search on isohunt... still seems to be going strong. And considering the age of this thread....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. February 2011 @ 20:33
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
17. February 2011 @ 04:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
That would make the entertainment industry (in the US)in breach of privacy considerations in regards to their ridiculously punitive civil court suites... interesting.
The ISP's who provide it without a lawful request are more at fault... Anybody (even you) can ask any organisation to provide any data they have stored, the point I was making was that the ISP's who provide it are breaching relevant privacy laws unless the request is being served under a court judgement.
Quote:
Guns? Unfortunately too many sad dickheads want to "go on a rampage". Is it a fair comparison comparing mass murder with file sharing? That's rather over the top. Besides your approach seems like locking the gate after the horse has bolted.
There are 2 ways to combat crime/wrong-doing, the assumption that everyone is innocent till proven guilty (which is the guiding principle of the vast majority of the populace) or that everyone is guilty until proven innocent (which is how the entertainment industry and those with knee-jerk reactions to the bit-torrent protocol seem to behave).
Quote:
Edit: here is the REAL update. Just did a google search on isohunt... still seems to be going strong. And considering the age of this thread....
What laws were they breaking? See my point above, all isohunt EVER did was send a list of IP addresses and a small file with some hash info...
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
17. February 2011 @ 07:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
That would make the entertainment industry (in the US)in breach of privacy considerations in regards to their ridiculously punitive civil court suites... interesting.
Quote:
The ISP's who provide it without a lawful request are more at fault... Anybody (even you) can ask any organisation to provide any data they have stored, the point I was making was that the ISP's who provide it are breaching relevant privacy laws unless the request is being served under a court judgement.
Well no one can just ask for data you need a court to allow you to get the data and if you have that then an ISP would have to provide said data.
Other wise they can be held for withholding information from a court case.
Quote:
Guns? Unfortunately too many sad dickheads want to "go on a rampage". Is it a fair comparison comparing mass murder with file sharing? That's rather over the top. Besides your approach seems like locking the gate after the horse has bolted.
Quote:
There are 2 ways to combat crime/wrong-doing, the assumption that everyone is innocent till proven guilty (which is the guiding principle of the vast majority of the populace) or that everyone is guilty until proven innocent (which is how the entertainment industry and those with knee-jerk reactions to the bit-torrent protocol seem to behave).
Well under normal US law yes that would be correct.
Under DMCA your guilty until you prove yourself innocent, all it takes is a copyright holder to take you to court and your screwed unless you can prove you didn't do what they say.
Quote:
Edit: here is the REAL update. Just did a google search on isohunt... still seems to be going strong. And considering the age of this thread....
Quote:
What laws were they breaking? See my point above, all isohunt EVER did was send a list of IP addresses and a small file with some hash info...
Problem though.... what Isohunt do is the EXACT same thing as what the pirate bay does.
Allow people to pirate copyright files.
You might not like that but it's a fact.
That what the owners of the pirate bay didn't understand, the court case wasn't ever about them having pirated files on their server, it was about them providing people links to pirated files and yes they do.
They even showed the court how they provide people with these links.
That is what silly people do, when they think... they understand the law but really don't understand it at all.
Though they are just kids running around thinking they know stuff, Geohot is the same deal he'll be screwed over and simply have no idea why.
Big business wins because they make money which pays millions in taxes and employee's pay checks and in turn they pay some taxes and pay big business back etc.
People not paying for stuff simply means people don't get employed and in turn stuff doesn't get made anymore.
Like this site wouldn't exist if it didn't pay it's bills just like Isohunt wouldn't exist if it's site owners didn't pay the hosting bill but where does the hosting money come from and it'll be ADs for the exact same stuff that's getting ripped off on isohunt.
Seem a bit funny if the ADs disappeared and then isohunt wouldn't exist because there's nothing to torrent on there and 2 the site can't afford to keep paying $1,000's in hosting costs.
|
Senior Member
|
17. February 2011 @ 10:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ MrZoolook
1) Ok. MY point is that for a (even a civil one) court to make that request it has to have a good reason or cause to justify that in the first place. They can't select to check out peoples records at random. What evidence do they present to the court to get it to make that request?
2) Yes, and in regards to file sharing, yes. The principle that you express cannot perhaps be extended to instruments which sole simple function is for killing. The assumption that it will not be used for it's purpose can be regarded as too big a risk to take (statistically speaking). Considering the consequences are so drastic.
My brother-in-law works in a gun shop. He says it's surprising how many dodgy idiots wander in asking inquiring after a handgun. It ain't that easy in Oz. Heh.
3) Indeed. I guess I was commenting on the title of this article. And other dated ones dealing with this particular news item.
@ xtago, MrZoolook is correct. Isohunt or TPB are no more responsible for non-profit "piracy" as Ford is for selling me a car that I might drive inebriated. I have downloaded quite legal torrents from them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. February 2011 @ 11:04
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
17. February 2011 @ 16:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
The ISP's who provide it without a lawful request are more at fault... Anybody (even you) can ask any organisation to provide any data they have stored, the point I was making was that the ISP's who provide it are breaching relevant privacy laws unless the request is being served under a court judgement.
Well no one can just ask for data you need a court to allow you to get the data and if you have that then an ISP would have to provide said data.
Other wise they can be held for withholding information from a court case.
Which is basically what I said! The usual procedure for getting documentary evidence from a 3rd party in a court case is to seek an injunction from the courts to the effect of ordering that 3rd party to release the information.
Additionally, the ISP's are duty bound to ONLY supply that information when a injunction has been served, and if they provide it to anyone without that court order, they "could" be held to account under data protection laws.
As an aside, worth noting the difference between being entitled to ask for data, and being granted the data after asking for it!
Quote:
Quote:
There are 2 ways to combat crime/wrong-doing, the assumption that everyone is innocent till proven guilty (which is the guiding principle of the vast majority of the populace) or that everyone is guilty until proven innocent (which is how the entertainment industry and those with knee-jerk reactions to the bit-torrent protocol seem to behave).
Well under normal US law yes that would be correct.
Under DMCA your guilty until you prove yourself innocent, all it takes is a copyright holder to take you to court and your screwed unless you can prove you didn't do what they say.
Exactly my point, the entertainment industry assume your guilty.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: here is the REAL update. Just did a google search on isohunt... still seems to be going strong. And considering the age of this thread....
What laws were they breaking? See my point above, all isohunt EVER did was send a list of IP addresses and a small file with some hash info...
Problem though.... what Isohunt do is the EXACT same thing as what the pirate bay does.
Allow people to pirate copyright files.
You might not like that but it's a fact.
That what the owners of the pirate bay didn't understand, the court case wasn't ever about them having pirated files on their server, it was about them providing people links to pirated files and yes they do.
They even showed the court how they provide people with these links.
This would be the same Pirate Bay that are still providing torrents? Not sure what your point is here... they were taken to court and yet are still running (though I admit I don't recall the exact judgement if any).
Quote:
That is what silly people do, when they think... they understand the law but really don't understand it at all.
TPB and (presumably the authorities) knew enough to know that TPB are at worst acting immorally... again, assuming their case has concluded, the fact they are still operating says they either won or the case was dropped for some reason and not followed through.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. February 2011 @ 16:35
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
17. February 2011 @ 16:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
2) Yes, and in regards to file sharing, yes. The principle that you express cannot perhaps be extended to instruments which sole simple function is for killing. The assumption that it will not be used for it's purpose can be regarded as too big a risk to take (statistically speaking). Considering the consequences are so drastic.
The underlying principle is sound...
Screwdrivers, matches, bricks, knives, rope, tent-pegs, computers, cups, bottles, mobile phones... at the most basic, anything and everything can be used in a crime of some description.
Who should be held to account if they are used in a crime... frankly, the person committing the crime. Though that's not to say the more potentially dangerous items should be handed out to anyone and everyone... but if you were to buy a flat-pack book-case, should you really need to call out a qualified builder because only they are permitted to use screwdrivers since screwdrivers are more potentially dangerous.
The point I am making is that the store-owner is given guidelines and regulations on whom to sell these things too (over 21s) and if the person attempting to buy the item passes these criteria... then that is where the store owners responsibility should end!
|
Senior Member
|
18. February 2011 @ 19:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
2) Yes, and in regards to file sharing, yes. The principle that you express cannot perhaps be extended to instruments which sole simple function is for killing. The assumption that it will not be used for it's purpose can be regarded as too big a risk to take (statistically speaking). Considering the consequences are so drastic.
The underlying principle is sound...
Screwdrivers, matches, bricks, knives, rope, tent-pegs, computers, cups, bottles, mobile phones... at the most basic, anything and everything can be used in a crime of some description.
Who should be held to account if they are used in a crime... frankly, the person committing the crime. Though that's not to say the more potentially dangerous items should be handed out to anyone and everyone... but if you were to buy a flat-pack book-case, should you really need to call out a qualified builder because only they are permitted to use screwdrivers since screwdrivers are more potentially dangerous.
The point I am making is that the store-owner is given guidelines and regulations on whom to sell these things too (over 21s) and if the person attempting to buy the item passes these criteria... then that is where the store owners responsibility should end!
At the risk of being dogmatic...
"...instruments which sole simple function is for killing."
I fail to see how you could not see that I made that distinction. That is plain simple English. You can disagree with it all you like but don't pretend I did not make it. I.e. not things which have other purposes regardless of the fact that any tool can be used for harm.
The shopkeeper's discretion is not at issue here but the availability of weapons. Weapon dealers will sell to anybody with money and always have. They cannot be trusted to make the decision. In Oz that is granted by the relevant authorities. Approaching a dealer and saying "you should not have sold that psycho an assault weapon (handslap)" after they have shot up a mall is pointless. As I said drastic consequences.
So in regards to tools which are designed for the singular purpose of killing the principal is not sound. And this is largely born out in my country.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
18. February 2011 @ 21:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am sure many Americans would argue the toss that guns have other purposes. After all, if they were "only" used to kill, they would not be sold so openly there. But that is an entirely different argument. Keep in mind every nation (including yours and mine) trades guns and other arms to other nations.
Or are you deliberately trying now to draw a distinction between being OK for a gvt to buy arms, but an individual should not?
Surely an individual would kill less then a gvt, should they both decide to go on a rampage?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. February 2011 @ 21:02
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
18. February 2011 @ 21:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Incidentally, the sole purpose of guns is to SHOOT not kill.
|
Senior Member
|
19. February 2011 @ 06:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Incidentally, the sole purpose of guns is to SHOOT not kill.
what happens when you shoot a living thing???it either gets injured or dies.people dont go hunting non-living things.occasionally guns are used in sport that doesnt involve killing things but only on very rare occasions.if the world was rid of guns it would be a safer place but unfortunetly if 1 country was rid of guns completely others would take advantage of them using guns.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
Senior Member
|
19. February 2011 @ 08:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Look man, I know guns are fun. I love shooting off a handgun at the range*. My brother-in-law is on the Olympic team... I'm just trying to be real.
@ xboxdvl2: You don't rid the guns from the army! LOL
*(Where someone manages to suicide every few months.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. February 2011 @ 08:38
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
19. February 2011 @ 14:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
lets stay on topic shall we or i'll close this thread.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
19. February 2011 @ 18:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ddp:
lets stay on topic shall we or i'll close this thread.
If you follow the thread carefully it is on topic.
A comparison is being made concerning the purpose of sites like isohunt and their legality. We're arguing over a point of principle in this regard.
I've been a long term member of AD and stuck by it, my record is sound and I give good input... there's no need to get heavy handed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. February 2011 @ 19:01
|
|
