The Shrine

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/mpaa ... entspy_com


MPAA Wins $111 Million Judgment Against Download Site TorrentSpy
Hilary Lewis | May 7, 2008 6:51 PM

gavel.jpgThe six major movie studios won their copyright infringement case against file-sharing Web site TorrentSpy.com. Site operator Valence Media has been fined $111 million, or $30,000 per violation, for roughly 3,700 illegal movie and TV-show downloads.

While the MPAA has praised the significance of the decision, handed down Monday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, its only value may be symbolic. TorrentSpy.com, a BitTorrent search engine, shut down in March, and Valence has sought bankruptcy protection.

Re. the subject line: no. Not until the Pirate Bay is shut down will we be able to ask this question, and even then it'll be contentious.

Squash 1...3 more pop up.

Flip wrote:file-sharing Web site TorrentSpy.com

THIS. This is why it was shut down.

It's because not even a tech savvy web site can correctly identify what kind of web site it is. It is not a "file-sharing" web site no more than Google is a "file-sharing" web site. You search for BitTorrents and download torrents. The site does not offer files. It is not sharing files.

These legal precedents are setting a frightening decree that indirect access to something is suddenly a crime. Now links can be considered a crime. (Example: TVLinks.co.uk) It seems more of a freedom of speech argument than anything else.

Goes to show what money can truly buy in the US

Oh man Flip... HORRIBLY misleading subject, I'm very disappointed in you.

Torrentspy's been dead for a year now anyway. As Barret mentions, in the time it took them to kill 1 website at least 50 sprung up. It sets a dangerous precedent yes, especially because as Sine said the site do nothing more than link to torrents... which I geuss if you look hard enough technically is still wrong. If you can prove that the site's soul purpose is to give users access to copyrighted material you have a case without still setting a bad precedent for things like google.

I'm more afraid of the ISP's killing BT than the **AA doing it. But really, the only way BT is going away is when someone develops something better.

The difference between a search engine and a BitTorrent site is well established. Google's primary purpose is not used to search for illegal stuff. It'd be difficult to argue this on most torrent sites where it's hard to find any legal stuff. Unless you're going to a BT site that consists only of Linux freeware it's hard to argue that the primary function is not to infringe on copyright.

The 50 that pops up to replace the 1 is rarely as good as the original 1 even when you put the 50 together. If they're really that good the 50 would have replaced the 1 already without any outside intervention.

What you will probably see is torrents go more underground because if you get a precedent going it is very easy to slap a bunch more lawsuits in all similar cases, and the way you phrase your site doesn't make it different. When BT gets sufficiently underground then they will go back to more important problems, like piracy in China, and your Naruto BTs should be safe.

Actually, meta-engines are bring though 50 together into one again. And nobody has brought a lawsuit against a torrent meta-search engine yet. (Too many levels of indirection.)

Well I imagine if you have a site that's essentially a search engine on other torrent sites, if you have enough of them that are of legitmate use, you may be able to argue that you really are like a search engine. If the 50 torrent site you search through are like free anime, free movie, free warez, and free TV shows, then that argument wouldn't work so well. If you only search through illegal stuff, then you can make an easy argument that this search engine is still illegal. This is the problem Baidu is having because they're essentially a search engine for pirated stuff, which is why they have a hard time getting any kind of presence outside of China because the copyright guys will slap them hard anywhere outside of China.

But if you really have enough legitmate torrent sites you're searching through, at that point it's not too different from going to Google and search like Naruto filetype:torrent or whatever their convention is, which is considered okay.

So, if I write a book on how to make bombs, I'm suddenly doing something illegal? Explain this again, because I'm a little confused how the content of the search engines really matters.

If you write a book on bombs and google finds it because someone typed "Sineswiper's Guide to Make Bombs" it's considered okay because Google has significant uses that doesn't involve finding how to make bombs.

On the other hand if I have a specialized search engine that only searches stuff that involves how to blow things up, it'd be difficult for me to make the argument that I had no idea people were using my search engine to find ways to blow people up. I'm not sure how the law would work exactly in this case in terms of liability, but at least I can't claim I have no idea that people are using the search engine to find out ways to blow things up while Google can make the claim.

If you've a torrent search engine that only searches over mostly illegal stuff, they'll tell you that it should be readily obvious you're searching mostly over illegal stuff so people can only use it for illegal stuff. This is basicaly what Baidu is. You type in like "Naruto" and it'll say did you mean:

Free naruto
Free naruto torrents
Free naruto anime
Free naruto download
And so on

It's pretty clear that Baidu has a significant interest in searching illegal stuff as a way to promote its traffic. This is why Baidu has to be in China where they don't care about copyrights.

If you mean like just getting into trouble for writing a book on bombs? I'm sure that's legal, but if you do it and then only distribute it to people who are interested in overthrowing the government, you might have some problems.

Well, I was talking about writing the book itself, not searching for a book. Say it's on the standard book market, or even just a web site. It's protected by free speech. I can say whatever the hell I want, even if that subject is illegal or promotes illegal activities. (I can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but that's a separate issue entirely.)

So, why is that level of indirection protected and legal, but indirection involving file-sharing is not?

Indirection in file sharing via a torrent tracker site is more like asking a shady dealer where to get the drugs, as opposed to finding it via a realy big yellow pages (Google). If you write a book in general on how to make bombs you can argue there might be uses beyond trying to blow people up. If you're writing the same book for Al Qaeda you'll probably run into some problems as well.

There has to be reason to believe that there are substantial legitmate use of something for the safe harbor rules, which is what search engines like Google, to apply.

Another important distinction is that when Google crawls a page that contains 'Naruto' in it, it doesn't really care or is able to distinguish it's a page on where to get the latest Naruto torrents or it's a page about why Itachi is the coolest thing since sliced bread. For all purpose search engines, it's usually accepted that it's not their responsiblity to police the Internet because they really have no idea what they're crawling over in the first place.

On the other hand, if I have a search engine of torrent sites, and one of the sites I search is FreeAnimeTorrents, it'd be difficult to say I have no idea everything there is illegal because by definition every Anime you download is without permission (guys who own the copyright are never interested in giving it away for free). Given that torrent sites often sort their content in a meaningful way (games, movies, etc), you can't make the same argument that you have no idea what your content is. I believe one of the torrent sites (could be TorrentSpy) made this argument before, and it was ruled that they should have an idea what their content is.

Now if TorrentSpy finds out 85% of the traffic is in downloading Linux distribution files, then maybe you can say that the site has a legitmate reason to exist despite the other 15% of illegal stuff. But it's pretty clear that most sites traffic heavily on the illegal side in a very obvious way.

I'm too lazy to read all of Don's essays, so I'll just ram my thoughts into this thread, whether they fit the flow of conversation or not.

Strictly speaking, torrent sites are the official public go-to when you want protected content. They are utilised, almost exclusively, for illegal activities -- who can really argue that? THAT said, ultimately they 'should' be free of liability, either by strict interpretation of the law or commonsense (note, loose interpretation can probably be applied if we accept torrent sites are willfully and knowingly assisting the user to commit a crime).

Ultimately, it's like suing the city for the existence of crime...it's directed in the wrong direction, but probably justifiable. Until a license system (or something similar) is in place to track your average internet user and have them accountable (which I believe WILL happen eventually), intellectually skakey court decisions like this will pop up...a result of under-educated and ill-equipped judges more than anything else.

Whatever happens, however it happens -- piracy is way too PUBLIC to exist for long in it's current state. Remember, just a few years ago, I had to set up private FTP access for you nerds to grab the latest releases...now my Mom could torrent the latest game/movie. Something has to give.

kali o. wrote:I'm too lazy to read all of Don's essays, so I'll just ram my thoughts into this thread, whether they fit the flow of conversation or not.

Strictly speaking, torrent sites are the official public go-to when you want protected content. They are utilised, almost exclusively, for illegal activities -- who can really argue that? THAT said, ultimately they 'should' be free of liability, either by strict interpretation of the law or commonsense (note, loose interpretation can probably be applied if we accept torrent sites are willfully and knowingly assisting the user to commit a crime).

Ultimately, it's like suing the city for the existence of crime...it's directed in the wrong direction, but probably justifiable. Until a license system (or something similar) is in place to track your average internet user and have them accountable (which I believe WILL happen eventually), intellectually skakey court decisions like this will pop up...a result of under-educated and ill-equipped judges more than anything else.

Whatever happens, however it happens -- piracy is way too PUBLIC to exist for long in it's current state. Remember, just a few years ago, I had to set up private FTP access for you nerds to grab the latest releases...now my Mom could torrent the latest game/movie. Something has to give.

Don really does have a subject, three paragraphs in the body, and a conclusion, doesn't he?

Yeah, that's what's saved the torrent sites in the past. Like you said, it would be like suing the city's civil engineers for paving a road when a drunk driver hit and killed someone. That's why this lawsuit loss for Torrentspy smells of bribery. Hell, even Demonoid came back after winning in court. But that was in Canada where there may be a judge here or there who isn't in someone's back pocket.

I never bothered putting up my FTP again, I just point the people to where I get my stuff.

Zeus wrote: Don really does have a subject, three paragraphs in the body, and a conclusion, doesn't he?

...it's nothing personal, I like Don just fine. His writing is just too academic and dull for me alot of the time. If he'd call people a douchebag or something occasionally, I'd probably be more interested, even if it took four paragraphs for him to do so

The torrent sites had basically no non-infringing use. When it was ruled that they are NOT like a search engine they had no chance at all.

Zeus, you either have a very naive or warped views of what the *enemy* is doing. There was nothing that saved the torrent site in the past other than that it wasn't worth going after them compared to say, piracy in China. Like I said by the time they break up the mega torrent sites such that piracy becomes somewhat leet knowledge again, the bad guys will go back to concentrate on more urgent problems like piracy in China. I remember people on mIRC would be like we're so cool the *AA will never catch us. Well if piracy is limited to mIRC and FTP sites, the *AA could care less what you're doing with them because the scope is simply too small for them to care (but they'll still slap you if you make it too eays for them).

I got my exotic, out of print Megaman X4 manga through some virus-infested Chinese site somewhere. If this is what people have to go through for their illegal stuff, the *AA won't have any problem with that.

Don, the issue I have with it is that, technically, torrent sites don't host nothing so they ain't distributing nothing. They've been going after them for the last 4 years or so (remember Supernova?) and have failed in the courts 'cause they ain't distributing. Torrentspy was the same yet they somehow won. I'd like to see how if every other one, including the one against Demonoid, failed.

From my understanding, the only reason any of the torrent things took a while is that all the judges have to stop and think that if they strike down a torrent site, which they know is totally illegal, is there any deep ramifications that causes the people in general to lose their rights as unintended consequences? The issue that saves the torrent sites is not related to copyright. It's one of privacy. One of the biggest question is, even if you got this site that just dishes out pure illegal stuff, should people have their privacy or do we have the rights to monitor them? If privacy wins, then you can't get the torrent sites because monitoring who's using what violates privacy.

I believe the key decision was when a judge said that a torrent site should know what their users are doing, and privacy in this case is not observed. Once privacy gets removed from the question, the rest is pretty no brainer. Again, the legality of torrent sites were never in question. The only reason they survived, legally, was because the America judicial system doesn't like trampling on people's privacy even if they know what you're doing is almost certainly illegal.

Don Wang wrote:From my understanding, the only reason any of the torrent things took a while is that all the judges have to stop and think that if they strike down a torrent site, which they know is totally illegal, is there any deep ramifications that causes the people in general to lose their rights as unintended consequences? The issue that saves the torrent sites is not related to copyright. It's one of privacy. One of the biggest question is, even if you got this site that just dishes out pure illegal stuff, should people have their privacy or do we have the rights to monitor them? If privacy wins, then you can't get the torrent sites because monitoring who's using what violates privacy.

I believe the key decision was when a judge said that a torrent site should know what their users are doing, and privacy in this case is not observed. Once privacy gets removed from the question, the rest is pretty no brainer. Again, the legality of torrent sites were never in question. The only reason they survived, legally, was because the America judicial system doesn't like trampling on people's privacy even if they know what you're doing is almost certainly illegal.

Even with my rather small and incomplete knowledge of the legalities behind torrent sites, Privacy was never a concern...so you are utterly and entirely wrong. I don't even know why you think it's an issue, in fact, as it's been proven time and time again (see music p2p cases) that providing copyrighted content illegally is criminal and is subject to liability...the issue is whether LINKS and the technology of indexing is "illegal copyrighted content"...and as far as I can tell, it's not.

I think you are either confused on what torrents are...or just confused...

kali o. wrote:

Don Wang wrote:From my understanding, the only reason any of the torrent things took a while is that all the judges have to stop and think that if they strike down a torrent site, which they know is totally illegal, is there any deep ramifications that causes the people in general to lose their rights as unintended consequences? The issue that saves the torrent sites is not related to copyright. It's one of privacy. One of the biggest question is, even if you got this site that just dishes out pure illegal stuff, should people have their privacy or do we have the rights to monitor them? If privacy wins, then you can't get the torrent sites because monitoring who's using what violates privacy.

I believe the key decision was when a judge said that a torrent site should know what their users are doing, and privacy in this case is not observed. Once privacy gets removed from the question, the rest is pretty no brainer. Again, the legality of torrent sites were never in question. The only reason they survived, legally, was because the America judicial system doesn't like trampling on people's privacy even if they know what you're doing is almost certainly illegal.

Even with my rather small and incomplete knowledge of the legalities behind torrent sites, Privacy was never a concern...so you are utterly and entirely wrong. I don't even know why you think it's an issue, in fact, as it's been proven time and time again (see music p2p cases) that providing copyrighted content illegally is criminal and is subject to liability...the issue is whether LINKS and the technology of indexing is "illegal copyrighted content"...and as far as I can tell, it's not.

I think you are either confused on what torrents are...or just confused...

Torrent sites were established as not the same as search engines from very early on. There's no ambiguity on whether a site that exists to enable infringing activity is illegal.

Here's a random link I found from slashdot regarding Torrentspy:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/0 ... 4&from=rss

Note that it cites privacy law as the reason to stop doing things in US.

As far as I know there are countries where the effort required to know you're downloading illegal stuff would violate their privacy laws, that's why torrent sites are okay on these countries, not because the country supports piracy but because it'd require breaking the law to stop it.

Don Wang wrote:Here's a random link I found from slashdot regarding Torrentspy:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/0 ... 4&from=rss

Note that it cites privacy law as the reason to stop doing things in US.

As far as I know there are countries where the effort required to know you're downloading illegal stuff would violate their privacy laws, that's why torrent sites are okay on these countries, not because the country supports piracy but because it'd require breaking the law to stop it.

You are confused as to what is "law" in that example and the reasoning behind it. Torrentspy did not want to be put in a position where it might have to compromise the "privacy" of it's users (by being compelled to release their logs to US entities). Not only that, but by restricting access to US users, they could limit the likeihood that they could be sued in that rather...hostile...copyright protection environment.


The legality behind torrents has shit-all to do with privacy laws Don, you are confused.

I agree with Kali on this, the privacy issue with Torrentspy was to protect US users from their logs being pulled DURING the legal procedings; the heart of the issue with torrent sites has nothing to do with privacy.

In the end, I think they'll still slowly get attacked and crushed because while they do not HOST copyrighted material, the site exists with the sole purpose of making pirated copyrighted material available to others. It's like if myspace was designed specifically for child molesters.

Again, books about bombs are not illegal, and neither should links to illegal material.

SineSwiper wrote:Again, books about bombs are not illegal, and neither should links to illegal material.

You can argue there are plenty of legitimate purposes for a book on making bombs, there are not such legitimate purposes for sites such as torrentspy. If you want to draw a comparison between torrent sites and bomb making books, then torrentspy's title would be "How to make a bomb vest capable of leveling a city block"

SineSwiper wrote:Again, books about bombs are not illegal, and neither should links to illegal material.

heh, what's illegal is whatever the government says is or isn't illegal. Logic probably has less to do with what's considered (il)legal than we'd like to think and a lot to do with money (see Disney IP laws).

This whole thing is about setting legal precedent to go after the next guy (and the next guy and the next guy...).

On a practical level though, technology may make it virtually unenforceable, so it may be a moot point anyway. It'll be interesting to see how much money the government spends attempting to enforce it.

Tessian wrote:If you want to draw a comparison between torrent sites and bomb making books, then torrentspy's title would be "How to make a bomb vest capable of leveling a city block"

Oh, you mean like the Anarchist Cookbook? Books like these are controversial, but still legal.

SineSwiper wrote:

Tessian wrote:If you want to draw a comparison between torrent sites and bomb making books, then torrentspy's title would be "How to make a bomb vest capable of leveling a city block"

Oh, you mean like the Anarchist Cookbook? Books like these are controversial, but still legal.

You could only compare the Anarchist Cookbook to Torrentspy if the Anarchist Cookbook contained an order form to obtain all the materials mentioned in the book.

Torrentspy isn't just telling you how to download copyrighted material, it's giving you an extremely easy and direct way to do so and that's the only reason why the site exists.

Don't get me wrong, I still use torrents on occasion for things that aren't exactly 100% legit, but I don't have any question about the legality of using that site.

Uhhh, it IS an order form on how to get the ingredients. Almost all of them can be found in Walmart.

I'd assume the right to bear arms and form a militia can at least let you make an argument that people have a right to know how to make bombs and stuff.

If you've a book on how to make nuclear bombs, that'd probably not work.

Don Wang wrote:If you've a book on how to make nuclear bombs, that'd probably not work.

wouldn't matter because the materials is the limiting factor more than the instructions.

I'm not an expert on making nuclear bombs but I'm pretty sure a very significant hurdle is the know-how. Uranium is supposed to be pretty abundant when you consider how little of it you need. I mean we fire depleted-Uranium shells so I doubt it's a case where a few countries have control of the world's supply of Uranium.

Don Wang wrote:I'm not an expert on making nuclear bombs but I'm pretty sure a very significant hurdle is the know-how. Uranium is supposed to be pretty abundant when you consider how little of it you need. I mean we fire depleted-Uranium shells so I doubt it's a case where a few countries have control of the world's supply of Uranium.

Nuclear bomb = split atom, watch distruction. It's not exactly uncommon knowledge, you can learn about how it works anywhere (http://www.atomicarchive.com/sciencemenu.shtml), it's the supply of the materials that's the limiting factor. It's the beginning and ending hurdle to any person/company/country with any sort of funds.

The obvious reason to the control the supply would be strategic and it is really the only limiting factor. Why do you think the US shits itself with anger every time North Korea or Iran talks about the bombs? Unfriendly countries with supplies of highly destructive materials ain't exactly a boon to national security.

As far as I know most of these nuclear talks is over countries trying to enrich Uranium to make it into weapon-grade. This implies whoever's trying to enrich Uranium at least has enough of it to started with.

Stealth is just putting some paint on your plane so that radars can't pick it up. I'm pretty sure the material they put on the planes isn't exactly something only the USA can produce. But obviously stealth is a very tightly guarded secret.

Wow this is getting off topic...

A nuclear bomb is NOT something a normal person will have the materials to build. That kid a decade or so back was enough proof of that (the one that tried to build a nuke reactor in his tool shed). Radioactive material, especially in the US, is very tightly controlled, and almost none of that would be usable in a nuclear bomb (dirty bomb != nuke). As you said it needs to be enriched in a facility and only governments have that ability. You can't just pick uranium up out of a mine and use it in a bomb.

And it's an insult to call the stealth technology used in the stealth bombers "paint". It's much, much more than that but yes it would be something another country could reproduce if they had the technology.