|
isoHunt sues CRIA on legality of torrent search engines
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 12 September, 2008
The torrent search engine isoHunt has announced that it is suing CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) in an effort to see what the judicial system thinks on the legality of torrent search engines.
From the isoHunt official blog, President Gary Fung writes:
"This is one of the hardest decisions I had to make, to sue one of the most powerful lobby and corporate conglomerates ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
eric2728
Newbie
|
12. September 2008 @ 20:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
nice a taste of ur own medicine
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
atomicxl
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. September 2008 @ 01:02 |
Link to this message
|
All this goes out the window when you see the site has ads on it.
The bulk of the content is copyrighted and should not be on there. Not only do you get money when people come to your site to access copyrighted content, but you aid them in getting this content. You're making $$$ from the copyrighted content, not paying a penny to the artist who drive visitors to your site (lets be honest, how dead would a torrent search engine be if you couldn't grab illegal content from it?) and then turning around and trying to play all innocent as if your site is primarily used by academics or people sharing home photos.
There is a world of difference between an upload home movie and a DVD rip of a movie. I don't know how anyone could try to spin that as the same thing and keep a straight face.
They better put up a donation box if they plan on taking on a massive media corporation. LOL, but if the visitors don't even think music is worth $0.99 I doubt they'll get too much as far as donations go.
|
|
ivymike
Member
|
13. September 2008 @ 02:26 |
Link to this message
|
Kinda risky move on their part. Look what happened with Grokster.
|
Member
12 product reviews
|
13. September 2008 @ 03:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by atomicxl:
All this goes out the window when you see the site has ads on it.
The bulk of the content is copyrighted and should not be on there. Not only do you get money when people come to your site to access copyrighted content, but you aid them in getting this content. You're making $$$ from the copyrighted content, not paying a penny to the artist who drive visitors to your site (lets be honest, how dead would a torrent search engine be if you couldn't grab illegal content from it?) and then turning around and trying to play all innocent as if your site is primarily used by academics or people sharing home photos.
There is a world of difference between an upload home movie and a DVD rip of a movie. I don't know how anyone could try to spin that as the same thing and keep a straight face.
They better put up a donation box if they plan on taking on a massive media corporation. LOL, but if the visitors don't even think music is worth $0.99 I doubt they'll get too much as far as donations go.
You are avoiding the question and instead expressing your views on illegal file sharing.
The question in this case is whether or not a search engine is liable for what it finds. In otehr words, if I type into Google, "Man molesting little boy while killing wife," and it brings me to a site that shows the nasty video, is Google then responsible? IsoHunt is not providing or even storing the torrents, they are a search engine for the torrents. Is Yahoo responsible for copyrighted material that I find on the internet using their search engine?
So read the article before you spat your views on illegal file sharing.
|
|
oappi
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. September 2008 @ 07:08 |
Link to this message
|
@gallagher
I agree. Torrent files are basicly links to file pieces and those make the whole thing you download. If i was going to get someone for that it would be the one who fist seeded the file and maybe to others who share the file.
Imo isohunt has done everything CRIA wanted, but still are beeing harassed by them.
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
13. September 2008 @ 07:26 |
Link to this message
|
@ gallagher
do a quick search in google, msn search (Live Search), yahoo and you can find plenty of copy-write material. Hell America was built of plagiarism, and slavery.
what needs to be separated is the rhetoric of labelling file sharing as stealing.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. September 2008 @ 07:31
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
13. September 2008 @ 07:45 |
Link to this message
|
This is interesting.. If they are seen to be guilty of anything then so is google and every other search engine...
Try typing in dark knight torrent into a google search box... and there you go.. lots and lots of copyright infringing content all happily found and reported with links by google... or is there more to this.. like the way google hands information over to the US government for spying purposes whereas isohunt doesn't.
I'm waiting for somebody getting arrested for "copyright infringement" by reading a book to their young children at bedtime.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. September 2008 @ 07:48
|
|
atomicxl
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. September 2008 @ 11:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hmmm... point taken.
Still though, I don't think they'll win this case. After taking my opinion on torrents out of it, I think they have a worthwhile argument but if the candian legal system is anything like the US one, a major corporation can keep the little guy wrapped up in insane legal fees until he doesn't have any money to continue forward with the case.
Its not breaking the law, just walking a very thin ethical line... a line very similar to the one walked when making money by helping people find illegal content.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
13. September 2008 @ 11:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
But surely that isn't the responsibility of a search engine? You can find all sorts of illegal information (or information governments would not like you seeing) using any search engine. The responsibility for content is down to the searcher and the end user.. Just because it may not be "ethical" to view or seek such information should it be denied? That kind of behaviour sets a very dangerous censorship precident.. as is happening in China right now, and as found by investigators and campaigners certain ISP's in the USA, Canada and the UK. This can be easily proven by anybody who cares to use a different dns service or a web proxy ;)
Fine.. be censored by "ethics".. and another nail is driven into the coffin of freedom.
|
|
noncomjd
Newbie
|
14. September 2008 @ 10:34 |
Link to this message
|
Google and other legitimate search engines are great tools for piracy, why screw around with a few trackers that one particular web site has decided to index when you can search them all using Google.
These same copyright groups know this too, yet they choose to send take down notices to Google rather than take them on. Why? Because they know that Google would fight them into bankruptcy.
The copyright groups choose to prey on the smaller and the weaker sites, which as some have pointed out are out are only taking information available from the web, they are not actively involved in Piracy. They are acting just like a yellow pages or an internet directory, just like Google. What these groups haven't learned is that piracy is not going to go anywhere. Period. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on creating various copyright protection schemes and they have all been broken, whether for software, audio or video. The ones that have semi-worked have only backfired against the legitimate owner.
These companies and their trade groups would be better served figuring out how to embrace the new technology and make money from that, rather fighting against the tide.
The truly amusing thing, on the software side anyway, is that for most software products sold, there are open source and free equivalents, which in most cases are as good, if not better than the software you pay for.
|
|
RappaJinx
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. September 2008 @ 22:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Its about time someone stood up to those punk four letter agencies. Peopel are getting tired of these idiots pushing them around.
Jit
www.anonymize.us.tc
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. September 2008 @ 07:49 |
Link to this message
|
I am waiting for a law that makes us pay money to breath air. That is what this is about. Enities making laws to prey on the public. Why should a patent that may have cost hundreds of millions of dollars last 17 yrs in the US while a copyright costing 5 grand last a century. It only cost 5,000 because the music industry took the artist out and got him drunk and buttered them up before they made the deal. This does not happen any more but the same type of slim is still running the show. Just a few year ago the law makers of Britan increased the length of the copyrights form 50 to 75 years. Why, "because it was fair". That meant the law makers were paid so it is fair that they should get what they paid for.
Law makers at not paid to think, just to act. Obviously their masters do not like Isohunt.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
