Judge: Isohunt Must Remove Infringing Content

[Abe Froman]

One of the largest BitTorrent search engines in the world, Isohunt, has been ordered by a US judge to remove all infringing content from the site. The ruling follows similar ruling against torrent tracker Mininova which has lost a great amount of traffic after complying with the order to remove copyright-infringing links from the site.

The problem with this ruling, as it often happens, is the question: what exactly is Isohunt doing that’s illegal, here? According to the judge, Isohunt must cease “creating, maintaining or providing access to browsable website categories of dot-torrent or similar files using or based on infringement-related terms.”

The site’s creator, Gary Fung, claims that complying would be the end of Isohunt. “Filtering against keywords. It amounts to nothing less than taking down our search engine,” he said. But Fung has an idea how to keep running the site in “lite” mode. It would strip Isohunt of categories, and pretty much everything else besides a big search box.

It’s understandable that the entertainment industry is going after large torrent sites, as they point to thousands of links to copyright-infringing content. But so does Google. Is Isohunt’s search box different than Google’ssearch box?


I hope the "lite Mode" is good.

http://mashable.com/2010/03/31/isohunt-remove-infringing-content/

 

[heyheybooboo]

How do you 'stay classy' when you steal the intellectual property of others?





--

 

[Craig234]

I'm glad to see measures against the people who would damage our culture - somewhat analogous to poachers who profit by taking to exteinction. We need more.

 

[Abe Froman]

I'm glad to see measures against the people who would damage our culture - somewhat analogous to poachers who profit by taking to exteinction. We need more.

So you don't download tv shows, music or movies? Ever?

 

[Linflas]

So you don't download tv shows, music or movies? Ever?

Wrong response. You can't justify a wrong by pointing out the hypocrisy of others. You were on to something with your question regarding the difference between searching in Google and searching a torrent index.

 

[rudder]

How do you 'stay classy' when you steal the intellectual property of others?

--

What is wrong with redistributing the wealth a little? If some rich actor stars in a movie and makes $20 million... and I can't afford to take my family to the movies... what is so wrong with downloading it and watching them for free? There are plenty of other people who work and have better money management skills than I do... they can afford to pay the ticket price or buy the DVD.

 

[Abe Froman]

Wrong response. You can't justify a wrong by pointing out the hypocrisy of others. You were on to something with your question regarding the difference between searching in Google and searching a torrent index.

I presume that nearly 98% of user on AT are downloading, so casting stones is a bit much.

They are going to keep shutting these sites down and they are going to fight, while new sites pop up. Let's be honest, there will always be pirates. The internet has made it easy for anyone to do it though.

 

[Linflas]

I presume that nearly 98% of user on AT are downloading, so casting stones is a bit much.

They are going to keep shutting these sites down and they are going to fight, while new sites pop up. Let's be honest, there will always be pirates. The internet has made it easy for anyone to do it though.

You may be correct, I have no idea the actual percentage. I am just telling you having seen these debates in the past that you cannot justify your argument by saying that everyone does it. Personally I think they are playing a game of whack a mole with silliness like this instead of cracking down on piracy that really hurts them. Go to any street corner in a large city and you can find people actually profiting from piracy rather than just viewing pirated content on their computer yet when was the last time you heard of a large scale crackdown on street vendors?

 

[PokerGuy]

It doesn't make sense to me that it is illegal to simply provide search results. It's no different than Yahoo or Google or Bing. The places that actually provide the infringing content are doing something illegal, not the search engine.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Can they not move the site to a server into a country that doesn't have these laws?

The illegality is baffling too, they aren't hosting the actual content.

 

[ShawnD1]

Can they not move the site to a server into a country that doesn't have these laws?

The illegality is baffling too, they aren't hosting the actual content.

Series of tubes, bro. Many people have no concept of how technology works. The judge probably thinks google is hosting Anandtech since one can be used to find the other.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Series of tubes, bro. Many people have no concept of how technology works. The judge probably thinks google is hosting Anandtech since one can be used to find the other.

I've seen people "get away" with it. I would think if the owner dis-associated himself from the domain, hosted it in a "offshore" data center, he would not have any issues...as there would be no one to confront. I would think the US has no jurisdiction in other countries in this matter as well.

 

[Farang]

What is wrong with redistributing the wealth a little? If some rich actor stars in a movie and makes $20 million... and I can't afford to take my family to the movies... what is so wrong with downloading it and watching them for free? There are plenty of other people who work and have better money management skills than I do... they can afford to pay the ticket price or buy the DVD.

Doesn't work that way. You are not the anointed arbiter of who pays for things and who does not, so your logical conclusions on who can afford what are moot. Moreover, the entertainment industry is filled with blue collar workers who don't get $20 million per film.

What you take without paying for you steal. I'm not going to say my hands are clean but when Netflix is $9 per month its hard to make excuses for it anymore.

 

[Wheezer]

meh...there are so many other ways around it......doing this is like pissing in the ocean.

 

[rudder]

Doesn't work that way. You are not the anointed arbiter of who pays for things and who does not, so your logical conclusions on who can afford what are moot. Moreover, the entertainment industry is filled with blue collar workers who don't get $20 million per film.

What you take without paying for you steal. I'm not going to say my hands are clean but when Netflix is $9 per month its hard to make excuses for it anymore.

Sure it works that way. Those blue-collar workers get paid... as long as people with more money than me buy a ticket. If those people choose to buy a ticket and I choose not to... that is not my problem. I could try to go out and make more money.. but as long as I can sit home and download all the entertainment I want for free... why would I?

 

[MovingTarget]

I don't see how they can call what they do illegal if all isohunt is doing is displaying search results. Honestly though, I think that people would have a much better understanding and respect for property rights if the copyrights were allowed to expire in a reasonable time (i.e. steamboat willie, etc.). Real reform is probably the best route to deal with piracy issues these days instead of playing legal whack-a-mole with torrent sites...

 

[theevilsharpie]

Is Isohunt’s search box different than Google’s search box?

If Google were to immediately remove every BitTorrent link to a copyrighted work being distributed without permission from its search results, 99.999% of its users would never notice.

If Isohunt were to immediately remove every BitTorrent link to a copyrighted work being distributed without permission from its search results, 99.999% of its users would stop using the service.

 

[TheClaw]

Why is providing search results illegal?

Can Google get in trouble because you could do a search for child porn and find it?
*I've never tried, but I'm sure it's possible.

Now if Isohunt was hosting the material than that would be illegal, same as if Google was hosting the underage p0rn.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Why is providing search results illegal?

Probably because the overwhelming majority of the content indexed by Isohunt is pirated, Isohunt makes no effort to remove such content from its index and even makes searching for such content easier, and the judge presiding over the case saw right through Isohunt's "but we're just providing search results!!1!" bullshit.

 

[Jaskalas]

Would it legally be sufficient to simply rename the file extension, as it is explicitly mentioned?

 

[TheClaw]

Probably because the overwhelming majority of the content indexed by Isohunt is pirated, Isohunt makes no effort to remove such content from its index and even makes searching for such content easier, and the judge presiding over the case saw right through Isohunt's "but we're just providing search results!!1!" bullshit.

You can find torrents on Google too, but I don't see them getting in trouble with johnny law.

 

[theevilsharpie]

You can find torrents on Google too, but I don't see them getting in trouble with johnny law.

Google's customers aren't using its search services for the sole purpose of copyright infringement.

 

[GoPackGo]

How do you 'stay classy' when you steal the intellectual property of others?





--

I love how all the people around here who are against "Big Oil", "Big Tobacco", "Big Pharma"...etc are in such adoration of "Big Entertainment"

 

[Jaskalas]

You can find torrents on Google too, but I don't see them getting in trouble with johnny law.

Judgments are applied selectively towards whichever target caches their fancy.

 

[GoPackGo]

Doesn't work that way. You are not the anointed arbiter of who pays for things and who does not, so your logical conclusions on who can afford what are moot. Moreover, the entertainment industry is filled with blue collar workers who don't get $20 million per film.

What you take without paying for you steal. I'm not going to say my hands are clean but when Netflix is $9 per month its hard to make excuses for it anymore.

Do you think those blue collar workers get residuals or royalties?

What about the ones who have been dead for years?

Everything made more than 30 or 40 years ago should be in the public domain..