Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Swedish Court Rules ISP Must Reveal OpenBitTorrent Operator's Identity

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the fess-up-now dept.

The Courts 230

2phar writes "An ISP must hand over the identity of the operator behind OpenBitTorrent, a court in Sweden ruled [Wednesday]. The ISP must now reveal the identity of its customer, operator of probably the world's largest torrent tracker, to Hollywood movie companies or face a hefty fine. 'OpenBitTorrent is used for file sharing, and we suspect that it is the Pirate Bay tracker with a new name. It is added by default on all of the torrent tracker files on Pirate Bay,' Hollywood lawyer Monique Wadsted said in an earlier comment. The ruling covers the customer behind the IP addresses 188.126.64.2 and 188.126.64.3 and/or any other IP addresses in Portlane's entire range (188.126.64.0 – 188.126.95.255) which have been allocated to tracker.openbittorrent.com since August 28, 2009."

cancel ×

230 comments

it's not the justice... (2, Interesting)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303648)

...it's the lobbies.
Guess who's putting everyone down a deep hellhole?
Yep, usury.
Fuck them.

Re:it's not the justice... (5, Insightful)

xerent_sweden (1010825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303774)

While I wouldn't share the harsh language of the hating parent, the spirit of it I can agree with. The IPRED law (which this ruling is about) essentially bypasses the fundamental rights of citizens to please the lobbyists. The law was frowned upon by civil rights groups and several relevant parts of the Swedish government protested publically. The law was proposed anyway by the Reinfeldt government after explicitly promising that "Vi tycker att upphovsrätten ska värnas, men vi vill inte kriminalisera en hel ungdomsgeneration." or "We think copyright should be protected, but we don't want to make the entire youth generation criminals." and passed by the Riksdag and went into effect on April 1, 2009 (what a joke). This law essentially turned the Hollywood lawyers play police on their own (what could possibly go wrong?). I had the opportunity recently to have a question relayed to Mr. Reinfeldt and the question I posed was essentially "Why did you say one thing and then do the opposite after the election?". The answer was another lie; equivalent to "The original statement was that swedish police should not hunt these criminals. We have other methods for that." which essentially means that it's okay to pass laws that lets the Hollywood lawyers play police. I have a recording of that answer here [pienet.org] (Swedish, MP3) as proof of these deceptions. Of course, the ISP:s didn't want to play along and this went to court over the privacy of their customers, citing fundamental laws of the European Union. But that's vapor to Hollywood. I'm sure we havn't seen the last of this yet. Oh, and by the way, the opposition in Sweden is playing on this. They've stated that they would like to remove the IPRED law. What they fail to mention is that they also would like to implement something even more hideous.

Re:it's not the justice... (3, Insightful)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303798)

The answer was another lie; equivalent to "The original statement was that swedish police should not hunt these criminals. We have other methods for that." which essentially means that it's okay to pass laws that lets the Hollywood lawyers play police.

There is a difference between criminal and civil law. Police enforce criminal law, and private citizens enforce civil law.

Are you claiming that private citizens play police when they enforce defamation law? or other delicts (torts in Common Law traditions)? No.

Decriminalizing something like copyright law does not automagically make it ok to do no matter what. When OJ was found innocent of murder, he was still found civilly liable for her "wrongful death". Doing harm to others still results in a responsibility... just not necessarily under criminal penal law.

Individuals are entirely responsible for enforcing their rights, and claims in civil court. So far, nothing you've attributed to the politician is a lie... it may be misleading if you don't understand the intricacies of law...

Re:it's not the justice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303940)

US != Sweden

Re:it's not the justice... (1)

tpwch (748980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303944)

Don't assume that because it works that way where you are it works that way everywhere. Copyright infringement is a criminal offense in Sweden, it is supposed to be enforced by the regular police.

Re:it's not the justice... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304584)

Copyright infringement is a criminal offense in Sweden

There's your problem, right there.

Re:it's not the justice... (3, Funny)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305024)

There's your problem, right there.

... on the other hand our sentences isn't decided on who's got the most money.

Re:it's not the justice... (1)

xerent_sweden (1010825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303966)

In Sweden, all crimes were investigated by the police - until IPRED. As far as I know, there's no difference between criminal and civil law - if it's again some law then it's criminal. We don't have the lawsuit paradigm over here. Then again, I'm not a Swedish lawyer, are you?

Re:it's not the justice... (3, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304030)

Decriminalizing something like copyright law does not automagically make it ok to do no matter what.

One problem though: there's nothing to decriminalize about it, at least not in Sweden.

Just make sure the judge you get is not a board member of a copyright lobby group [gizmodo.com] .

Re:it's not the justice... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305004)

"Vi tycker att upphovsrätten ska värnas, men vi vill inte kriminalisera en hel ungdomsgeneration."

I don't know if you read too much into the "kriminalisera" part or what.

But none the less what he said is more or less "I like the idea of copyright but we can't look at millions of people as 'criminals'", shall they judge them all?

If he then forms a law which help copyright holders find out the personal data of people infringing on copyright to prosecute them for that he has turned them all into criminals which may be punished for a very common crime made by millions of people.

The young(?) copyright infringing population is still at risk of getting punished and seen as criminals, something he said we couldn't have.

What I find even lamer though is that instead of trying to catch and punish all those millions of people actually breaking copyright (which wouldn't be popular ..) they go after the TBP operators which IMHO haven't committed any crimes whatsoever just because it's easier, more well-accepted among the general population and won't hurt their own popularity (or rather kill it totally .. what if the kids of everyone/all families got ridiculous Hollywood damage compensations fees?)

For a government to criminalize (I don't care about your definition of the word) a major part of the population is probably more or less suicide. To just go after the leaders somewhat easier.

I don't think EU let us just say that copyright infringement for personal/non-commercial use is ok though. But in that case just fix it at EU level then .. Or rather reform copyright laws so it's only illegal/breach of copyright if you earn money on someone else work (don't know where that will put OSes and other very generic tools though.)

The law, morals, right and wrong aren't set in stone and can be discussed.

Re:it's not the justice... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303822)

Jesus christ. You expect people to actually read that? I'll sum up how the lack of formatting made it appear.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ccccccccccccccc ddddddddddddddd eeeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffff
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ccccccccccccccc ddddddddddddddd eeeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffff
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ccccccccccccccc ddddddddddddddd eeeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffff
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ccccccccccccccc ddddddddddddddd eeeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffff
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ccccccccccccccc ddddddddddddddd eeeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffff
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ccccccccccccccc ddddddddddddddd eeeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffff ...

Re:it's not the justice... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304000)

"The ISP must now reveal the identity of its customer, operator of probably the world's largest torrent tracker, to Hollywood movie companies" = JEWS...

The Jew doesn't do manual labour. The eternal Jew... never satisfied, always trying to grasp more and more of the goyim's money...

99% of modern films (the ones made by Jews, at least, which is most films in the West) are rubbish, and the Jews know it.

Re:it's not the justice... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304252)

Another swede here. Parent is completely right, but despite all this, IPRED has become mostly toothless in fighting individual filesharers. There is another old law that says that information about who has what IP has to be thrown away when it's not neccesary anymore (most people have dynamic IPs I believe), and ISPs (even the larger ones) have started removing logs in compliance with this law, so when they get an IPRED inquiry they can just answer "we don't know".

Thanks to this, though, the police has complained that they can't trace communication in real crimes anymore (in swedish [sverigesradio.se] ), meaning it's not just ineffective but damaging. The data retention directive would change this, of course, but with the pirate movement, we might be able to evade it.

Re:it's not the justice... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305058)

real crimes>/quote>.. :D

The problem is that copyright infringement is seen as a crime at all. Naughty behavior maybe ;)

... boys will be boys! / Roy Snyder

cant you fuck it up (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304414)

by bringing Eu regulations and laws into the matter ? If you take that to Eu, if basic privacy rights of individuals are violated in lieu of Eu rules, sweden would get heavily battered in European courts.

Re:it's not the justice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304542)

Of course, the ISP:s didn't want to play along and this went to court over the privacy of their customers, citing fundamental laws of the European Union. But that's vapor to Hollywood. I'm sure we havn't seen the last of this yet.

The ISP:s are not concerned about the privacy of their customers. They know that the only reason that people are willing to pay for high bandwidth, is to pirate movies.

There are a few, that are willing to pay for high badwidth for other reasons.

Re:it's not the justice... (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304866)

ACTA will be next [youtube.com] and make IPRED worse.

/. must reveal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303652)

muh dick [slashdot.org]

el yoop (0, Offtopic)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303656)

iT was a psychpo LEMUR!!!! everyone LOOK Outa!!!!!

OBT is not breaking any laws (3, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303674)

OpenBitTorrent is just a tracker. That's all; not a torrent indexer like TPB. They are not responsible for whatever people choose to use their service to download or distribute. I'd also imagine they can't do anything about what people move through their service.

They don't condone piracy; in fact, their website asks that users not illegally distribute copyrighted material with the tracker. This, combined with the fact that OBT is non-profit (as far as I know) means that they aren't profiting from infringement and they aren't condoning or aiding infringement.

Finally, even if it gets shut down, the project is open-source. It won't take long at all for one or two or a dozen clones to pop up.

I pray the Swedish judge has an ounce of sense.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303686)

What's happening with Sweden recently? Have they been nobbled?

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303766)

They got hit by MAFIA bribes big time. Cannot really explain the "strange coincidences" surrounding all those cases otherwise. Another country ruined by corporations.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (4, Informative)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303764)

OpenBitTorrent is just a tracker. That's all; not a torrent indexer like TPB. They are not responsible for whatever people choose to use their service to download or distribute. I'd also imagine they can't do anything about what people move through their service.

So far, the *IAA is just looking for the identity of the people operating the OBT. They suspect that they are simply The Pirate Bay under a new name.

Let me give a good example. I operate an open Wi-Fi access point. A neighbor uses it to download copyrighted material. The copyright owner then sues the ISP to obtain the identity of the individual operating my IP. They receive it, so that they can then sue me to obtain the identity of the individual who properly violated their copyright.

They may potentially need this information in order to be able to subpoena an individual in a copyright claim court case.

While we don't particularly like the idea that people can sue to obtain another's identity, in order to provide for proper civil actions to be taken, sometimes you have to sue for the identity of another individual.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304024)

ho-ly shit! Someone gets it? On Slashdot? Never in my wildest dreams. I love you, snowgirl!

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304502)

You have the right to be left alone as long as you're not doing anything illegal. If the Bittorrent tracker operators do not themselves break the law, their identity is nobody's business.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303792)

OpenBitTorrent is just a tracker. That's all; not a torrent indexer like TPB. They are not responsible for whatever people choose to use their service to download or distribute.

Disclaimer: I don't think this tracker should be shut down, and I find the RIAA, MPAA & Co to be despicable.

However, I'm not really sure this argument holds up legally. Usually, a content provider (Youtube for example) is obligated to take down infringing content on request, or otherwise to make a counter-argument against the take-down notices. They can't just say "we aren't responsible for the content." Now, you may argue that because it's just a tracker, they aren't trafficking in infringing content. But in reality, there isn't that much separation. They are facilitating the downloading of that content.

In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal. For example, one person walks up to another person and says "Hey, I want to murder Bob Jones, but I don't know where he lives, can you help me?" and the second person says "Yeah, he lives at 123 Fake Street, here's copy of his house key. By the way, here's where you can get a really nice shotgun which would be a really effective murder instrument to use."

They don't condone piracy; in fact, their website asks that users not illegally distribute copyrighted material with the tracker.

That's pretty unconvincing. They all say that. Words are cheap, actions matter more. If they were actively removing infringing torrents, that would be another matter.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (2, Interesting)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303818)

In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal. For example, one person walks up to another person and says "Hey, I want to murder Bob Jones, but I don't know where he lives, can you help me?" and the second person says "Yeah, he lives at 123 Fake Street, here's copy of his house key. By the way, here's where you can get a really nice shotgun which would be a really effective murder instrument to use."

In this case, the ISP is bound by a court order. If I were in the similar situation, where a court order held me responsible, and I had reason to believe that they intended harm against the other. a) I would present it in court... this should be seen as an invalid reason to know the identity of another. (this is obviously not the case. the *iaa in this case simply intend to bring about legal actions... which is a legitimate reason for discovery of another's identity) b) should the previous argument fail, I would refuse to release the individuals identity, and let the plaintiff sue me to obtain the funds, and present argument (a) again, arguing that under a reason of necessity, I am violating the law to protect the life and rights of another. c) should (b) fail, which is likely would, if it even got that far, I would likely face the penalty myself... which I would pay. Because $$$ out of my pocket is worth saving the life of another.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (2, Insightful)

Stephan Schulz (948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303840)

In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal.

I agree, but your example is somewhat off. OBT is only providing infrastructure in a content-agnostic way. They are more like an ISP, or the phone directory, or Google Maps - or even the city that builds a street through a high-crime area. The question is if such a "don't ask, don't tell" policy is acceptable.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (5, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303844)

Usually, a content provider (Youtube for example) is obligated to take down infringing content on request, or otherwise to make a counter-argument against the take-down notices. They can't just say "we aren't responsible for the content." Now, you may argue that because it's just a tracker, they aren't trafficking in infringing content. But in reality, there isn't that much separation. They are facilitating the downloading of that content.

I think the distinction between YouTube and a BitTorrent tracker is fairly substantial. YouTube actually hosts the infringing content on its website. With BT, it's the users that are doing the hosting. The tracker can't take down any content, nor can they remove infringing torrents (as you later said), because it's not a hosting service. They can't tell what's copyrighted and what's not any more than other software can; all they have are file names and hash values.

In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal. For example, one person walks up to another person and says "Hey, I want to murder Bob Jones, but I don't know where he lives, can you help me?" and the second person says "Yeah, he lives at 123 Fake Street, here's copy of his house key. By the way, here's where you can get a really nice shotgun which would be a really effective murder instrument to use."

Then the second person is knowingly aiding and abetting a crime. A tracker doesn't do this when it connects peers, because again, it doesn't know what is legal and what isn't.

That's pretty unconvincing. They all say that. Words are cheap, actions matter more. If they were actively removing infringing torrents, that would be another matter.

Regardless of how cheap the words are, I would imagine the notice would give them some protection against the "aiding & abetting" accusation. But you're right; actions do matter more. And they're not taking steps to block infringing torrents (because I'm sure we both understand that such steps would take an ungodly amount of the owners' time, and would ultimately be futile anyway), but they're also not encouraging infringement or profiting from it. This makes me see OBT as a "dumb" tracker, sort of like how BitTorrent itself is a "dumb" protocol for file transfer. Its purpose is to move the files, not to care about what the files are.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (5, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303946)

Mod parent up.

You might as well accuse any node on the series of hops between your computer and the "dirty file-sharing bastard" who is actually seeding the file, of copyright infringement.

Request = I am looking for X. Response = X is located here, here and here.

It's a protocol router, nothing more or less than say the DNS system, or an indexing service like Google.

This nonsense that "they know they are infringing because they can read the filenames" is just that ... nonsense.

The next version of popular torrent software should think about hashing the file names also ... then the only request / response passing through the tracker will be "Hash 0x345fed017 is located at IP 1.2.3.4".

Try proving that a one-way hash of a filename is "infringing", and that the tracker can do anything about "taking it down".

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304318)

I thought the point behind OBT is that it DOESN'T know the filenames.

I was lead to believe that whenever a client connects to OBT with "announce?infohash={{insert_hash_here}}", OBT says "sure I have that hash", here's a list of peers that contains no-one but yourself -- ie. the site is just a giant hashtable where each bucket is a linked list of IP addresses, it doesn't hold the torrent files or know what is in them at all. Hashes are added to the list the first time a peer contacts the announce page with that hash, that's it.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304730)

That's correct, but it doesn't matter that much in practice.

In practice, the hashes are SHA1, and intended to be unique (indeed, the protocol would break down horribly if they weren't), and such torrents are typically public - indexed on public webpages. Which means you can typically easily locate the relevant torrent by websearching for the hash.

If you, as a tracker owner, wanted to know the filenames of the associated torrent, there's an easy and reliable way for you to get them. You might not do it, but by the same token you might choose (as a human) not to look at filenames cached by your server - in either case you're just making a deliberate decision to look away.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304902)

Do torrent sites publish the hash in the HTML page? I've never saw it. If they don't, you'd have to download every torrent file, index them and then search the hashes, which is way more effort than "not looking away".

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (1)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304820)

The next version of popular torrent software should think about hashing the file names also ... then the only request / response passing through the tracker will be "Hash 0x345fed017 is located at IP 1.2.3.4".

That's already the case -- the tracker only ever sees the info-hash, which is a SHA-1 hash of one part of the .torrent file. The filenames only appear in the .torrent file.

Of course, finding the filename corresponding to an info-hash is usually just a web search away [scroogle.org] .

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (4, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304188)

Actually it's closer to this:

Bob hands Charlie a note written in Spanish, and asks him to hand it to Sue.. Charlie can't read Spanish, but before accepting notes Charlie did ask that they not use him to talk about blowing up the White House. Charlie hands the note to Sue, and hands the return message back to Bob.

Keep in mind, this whole time, Charlie can't read Spanish. Turns out, the notes were bomb-plot arranging.

So, is Charlie really at fault or otherwise responsible for the contents of said note? I think that, upon demonstration of Charlies request, and demonstration of Charlies lack of Spanish literacy, he would be found innocent.

So. Change "note" to "bittorrent tracker data," and "bomb plot" to "copyrighted material." Oh shit! Charlies in big trouble now!!

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304644)

about blowing up the White House

So far, we've had hosting a bittorrent tracker compared to murder and blowing up the White House.

Can we have a little perspective please? We're talking about sharing pop music and shitty hollywood movies, for god's sake. It's the equivalent of a kid sneaking into the circus, not capital crimes.

The fact that countries are being bullied into giving up their sovereignty by a bunch of greasy lawyers for the entertainment industry is a travesty.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304600)

If they were actively removing infringing torrents

How can a torrent infringe? It's the content that infringes, no?

I've looked at a torrent file in Notepad, and it does not appear to be copyrighted material.

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304788)

In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal. For example, one person walks up to another person and says "Hey, I want to murder Bob Jones, but I don't know where he lives, can you help me?" and the second person says "Yeah, he lives at 123 Fake Street, here's copy of his house key. By the way, here's where you can get a really nice shotgun which would be a really effective murder instrument to use."

Aren't you tired of idiotic comparisons which compare copyright infringement to murder? After reading Slashdot for as long as I have, I am. Let me give you a hint. Making this comparison doesn't help people relate to your arguments seriously on their own merits.

And as for your argument here, it is not at all a good analogy, even disregarding the extreme crime you've chosen. The truth is that it is impossible for the operators of OBT (by themselves) to know whether content is infringing or not, unless, of course, the torrent itself claims to be infringing (and even then, one cannot be sure --- look at what we've discovered about Viacom's marketing tactics thanks to their suing YouTube/Google). This is not at all close to your example, where someone explicitly declares "I want to commit a crime".

They don't condone piracy; in fact, their website asks that users not illegally distribute copyrighted material with the tracker.

That's pretty unconvincing. They all say that. Words are cheap, actions matter more. If they were actively removing infringing torrents, that would be another matter.

We do not have information whether OBT is ignoring takedown requests. In fact the article claims:

OpenBitTorrent has never portrayed the ‘jolly roger’ style of The Pirate Bay and even has a DMCA-style notice and takedown procedure to stop the tracking of torrents. Even so, it would be surprising if they hadn’t anticipated the possibility of a court ruling like this and taken the necessary steps to hide their identities from Portlane.

BTW, I also agree with the article. The **AAs will, at the most, find some really nebulous connections with the "Pirate Bay Four" (or was it five? I don't remember).

Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304100)

Am I imagining things or does Publicbittorrent [publicbt.com] look familiar?

Swedes Not Very Good Pirates, Now Are They ?? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303680)

The Swedes are pussies !! Norseman WANNABES !!

Come on (4, Informative)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303756)

Swedes, you used to be cool. What happened?

Piracy never hurt anyone more than the various industries are hurting themselves and their customers, and filesharing in itself is only a good thing. Filesharing is what the Internet is all about, and the Internet would hardly exist without it.

Hollywood, you can keep producing ridiculously expensive and wasteful movies, but you gotta come up with better excuses when you're losing money. It's never piracy. A good movie will make money no matter what, and it'll get advertised through filesharing around the world, faster than you apparently are able to do. Though it might not make a profit if you spent more than a small nation's budget to make it.

Re:Come on (5, Interesting)

etnoy (664495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303868)

We're still pretty cool. I don't think any other country has such a debate around intellectual property and YRO as ours. Also remember that the Pirate Party movement, that now involves dozens of countries all around the globe, started in Sweden. We're putting these issues on the agenda, and people are gradually realizing the ridiculousness of, among many other things, the *IAA mafia.

Re:Come on (3, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303870)

You don't realize how, well "Lawful" (for a lack of a better word) Swedish society is. This is both a blessing and a curse.

Re:Come on (0, Offtopic)

popo (107611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304046)

"Hollywood, you can keep producing ridiculously expensive and wasteful movies"

One word: Unions.

It's the reason we can't do anything cheaply in America. They will of course, eventually immolate themselves -- as all efforts to extract more revenue than the system can support, ultimately do.

Flame away, unionites.

Re:Come on (4, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304144)

First off: Unions have their place. In certain situations, they are necessary to prevent a lot of atrocious behavior.

Having said that, very few unions are worthwhile these days. Most of them just exist to make sure people get more wages than their work is worth. They even out the good and back workers as well, making sure that nobody can get ahead for doing a good job and guaranteeing that nobody works extra hard because of it.

California is the only place I have lived that actually needs unions still. The attitude of employers out there is astonishing. They seem to think that anything they can get away with is acceptable. Unions keep them in check.

Re:Come on (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304640)

Unions have become a self perpetuating bureaucracy.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/ [jerrypournelle.com]

"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."

Re:Come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304964)

Unions have become a self perpetuating bureaucracy.

This is true for all bureaucracies when they get big enough; political parties and government, the military, corporations, charities, religions....

The sooner people recognise this seems to be a universal problem with human groups, the sooner it will be possible to address the downsides of bureaucracies. There is no denying that one of the things that makes humans top dog on this planet is how we can dynamically form groups, and work together, and as a consequence we have achieved so much. We cannot abandon the kind of systems that become bureaucracies, but with knowledge we can manage them.

Unions are just a name for a group of people who have created a system to advocate their interests. So picking out unions as "bad" is either ignorant, or showing support for just a different bureaucratic system.

Captcha: quarrels

Re:Come on (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304420)

I think its more about half the budget being for one actor then anything else.

Re:Come on (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304118)

The Pirate Bay happened.

"Yes, we can totally support piracy. No, Hollywood doesn't have a leg to stand on. Yes, this is totally legal, honest. Someone who once read a lawbook thinks so. Oh, what do you mean Hollywood can afford better lawyers than us?"

If TPB had at least made a token effort to do something about piracy, Hollywood wouldn't have had such an easy target. Now they've got cocky.

Re:Come on (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304978)

"Yes, we can totally support piracy. No, Hollywood doesn't have a leg to stand on. Yes, this is totally legal, honest. Someone who once read a lawbook thinks so. Oh, what do you mean Hollywood can afford better judges than us?"

FTFY.

Seriously, have you read the news about the trial? The prosecution was totally ignorant about how BitTorrent works, tried to introduce evidence mid-trial, and the court after convicting them for $3.5 million and one year of jail, said "responsibility for assistance can strike someone who has only insignificantly assisted in the principal crime"

Spectrial indeed.

Re:Come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32305016)

IIRC, not very long before the raid on TPB, the DA that then brought the case, said something like "There's nothing we can do about TPB". Interesting reasoning in this pdf [svt.se] (in swedish)

I would guess/hope that someone in that position would have done a little more in the field of law than "once read a lawbook"...
But that was of course before the politicians (Bodström et al.) got leaned on during a visit in the US...

Re:Come on (1, Informative)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304120)

My bet is that the MAFIAA has choosen Sweden as their battleground. There are likely more pirates per capita here than in any other place of the world. Plus the tech industry is strong and we rely on IP rights for lots of exports such as "Swedish design." If Hollywood can win here, they will win all over the world.

And while it may appear otherwise, Sweden actually has much stricer IP laws than for example the US. There is no DMCA Safe Harbour provision or concept of fair use.

Re:Come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304154)

There is no DMCA Safe Harbour provision or concept of fair use.

There is fair use, it's called Citaträtt [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Come on (3, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304324)

There is no DMCA safe harbor because there is no DMCA equivalent law and there is fair use, could you please atleast glance at the Swedish IP law before spouting off misinformation? (Fair Use in Sweden is almost exactly the same as in the US, you can make copies of anything you own, you can share with friends and family etc)

Re:Come on (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304698)

"you can make copies of anything you own"

Actually you don't have to own it. The only requirement (added in 2005) is that the original you make the copy from was not created in an infringing way and that it is not made available to the public in an infringing way. In addition, computer software is excluded completely as well as complete or substansial parts of books. You are also only allwed to make a few such copies of each work.

Re:Come on (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304136)

This is not sense, logic, reason or "what's good".

This is Spar... I mean, this is the law!

Re:Come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304202)

Swedes, you used to be cool. What happened?

Global Warming. But there is still hope. You can help by donating to Piratpartiet [piratpartiet.se] .

Re:Come on (1)

xerent_sweden (1010825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304206)

Hollywood, you can keep producing ridiculously expensive and wasteful movies, but you gotta come up with better excuses when you're losing money.

Since when are the movie companies really losing money? All I hear is that their profits are up and they're complaining about unrealistic, non-existing superprofits such as a gazillion dollars per downloaded movie.

What they're really losing money over are lawyer costs and lost sales. Give us iTunes and Hulu in Sweden and people will stop downloading. Promise!

Please link me to an independent source that proves me wrong. I'd love that.

Re:Come on (2, Interesting)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304486)

Hollywood, you can keep producing ridiculously expensive and wasteful movies, but you gotta come up with better excuses when you're losing money. It's never piracy. A good movie will make money no matter what, and it'll get advertised through filesharing around the world, faster than you apparently are able to do. Though it might not make a profit if you spent more than a small nation's budget to make it.

Given the strange accounting practices in Hollywood it's incredible that anyone has the slightest idea which movies make a profit and which make a loss.

You can stop the madness. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303830)

http://www.piratpartiet.se/donate

Re:You can stop the madness. (1)

zig007 (1097227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303854)

Done.

Re:You can stop the madness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304304)

What if they subpoena them for their donators' ids? You know, to fight international money-laundering, copyright violetation, diverse geometric constructs bult ou of of pedohiles, er, and drug traficking ... and, aha!, terrorism too (somehow) !

What would Judge Roy Bean say ?

Re:You can stop the madness. (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304490)

They can't do that, that would be illegal (since the pirate party is a political party).

Can't connect to openbittorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303892)

I was just reading this headline on slashdot, then browsed to some other place where people mentioned that the DNS for openbittorrent.com now points at 127.0.0.1

Seems to be constant across all the major DNS servers.

Coincidence?

Re:Can't connect to openbittorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303954)

Same here. Definitely not coincidence.

Re:Can't connect to openbittorrent (1)

tdelaney (458893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304052)

Seems a number of domains/hostnames are returning 127.0.0.1 - two that I tried are openbittorrent.com and tracker.thepiratebay.org).

I hope the registrars will be refunding the registration fees for these domains. And that they be sued for breach of contract.

Re:Can't connect to openbittorrent (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304222)

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;openbittorrent.com.            IN      A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
openbittorrent.com.     172800  IN      NS      ns1.idnz.net.
openbittorrent.com.     172800  IN      NS      ns2.idnz.net.
openbittorrent.com.     172800  IN      NS      ns3.idnz.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.idnz.net.           172800  IN      A       194.50.187.134
ns2.idnz.net.           172800  IN      A       194.0.182.1
ns3.idnz.net.           172800  IN      A       193.227.117.124

;; Query time: 39 msec
;; SERVER: 192.26.92.30#53(c.gtld-servers.net)
;; WHEN: Sat May 22 06:31:34 2010
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 146

;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37978
;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;openbittorrent.com.            IN      A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
openbittorrent.com.     3600    IN      A       127.0.0.1

;; Query time: 118 msec
;; SERVER: 194.50.187.134#53(ns1.idnz.net)
;; WHEN: Sat May 22 06:31:35 2010
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 52

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

   Domain Name: OPENBITTORRENT.COM
   Registrar: KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
   Whois Server: whois.rrpproxy.net
   Referral URL: http://www.key-systems.net
   Name Server: NS1.IDNZ.NET
   Name Server: NS2.IDNZ.NET
   Name Server: NS3.IDNZ.NET
   Status: ok
   Updated Date: 30-jan-2010
   Creation Date: 03-feb-2009
   Expiration Date: 03-feb-2012

Interesting. The nameservers in use are on a domain registered to openbittorrent. This means that the registrar is not at fault.

Oops.

So... OPB is illegal... how? (1)

TigerTails (1453761) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303938)

Am I missing something blatantly obvious that the courts seem to be able to see? TPB was clearly condoning piracy, we all know that.. but OBT is just a generic public platform that people can use to share nondescript files. It's like.. going after the state because somebody was murdered on THEIR streets, the streets are a generic platform to get from A to B through the medium of walking, but of course, somebody will exploit that medium.

Re:So... OPB is illegal... how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304018)

They're not claiming OBT are illegal -- this is a subpoena to the ISP to find who OBT are, so they can subpoena OBT for a list of IPs accessing them, so they can subpoena the ISPs those came from for the people who had those IPs at that time, so they can sue _them_ for infringing copyright.

And/or it's to find out if it's actually TPB guys running OBT, although I'm not sure why that would matter, legally.

So ms Wasted also likes Scientologists' money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303972)

whatta catch guys. She'll clearly put out for ANYONE..... (with $$$$$$$$)

Info about Opentracker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303984)

Opentracker is the software behind many public trackers. The people behind this software project gave a talk at the 24th Chaos Communication Congress in 2007. There is a video recording of this talk [events.ccc.de] (in German). (The talk is titled "Tracker fahrn". It's a play on words: "Trecker" is pronounced like "tracker" and means "tractor", hence the picture.)

In the talk they explained the basics of the Bittorrent protocol, how their project came to be and what they learned writing and running a high throughput open tracker (denis.stalker.h3q.com). Comments about their experience with XS4ALL at 33 minutes - hilarious; how the PirateBay tracker switched to Opentracker at 43 minutes; but watch the whole thing.

The Reason for This Subpoena (5, Insightful)

lacoronus (1418813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304134)

I think the reason for the subpoena is that the Hollywood gang thinks that the people behind Open Bittorrent and The Pirate Bay are the same.

Right after the PB trial there was a lot of discussion regarding whether TPB would have been illegal if it hadn't done so much. For example, TPB was convicted because they were actually hosting torrent files, which caused them to fall under a different law than, for example, and ISP. But what if the illegal parts were dropped? Why, you'd be untouchable. The problem is then, is there a way to distribute the functionality of TPB so that the constituent websites are all legal, but taken together, they provide exactly the same service as TPB?

A little while later, Open Bittorrent opened up.

So when the next lawsuit comes up, it will not be Hollywood vs. one site that in itself isn't illegal, but Hollywood vs. a bunch of sites that taken together are claimed to be illegal. However, in order for this to work, there must be proof that the websites are really connected. That's what they're going for.

My prediction: OpenBittorrent will be convicted. TPB was found guilty because they received and hosted torrent files, which in turn triggered liability. You don't have to actually host illegal copies, as long as you receive, store information for a longer period of time than (roughly) the actual transmission of the information, and then send it to one or more consumers, you do not have "common carrier" immunity under Swedish law, and must not only not host illegal content - you must not host anything connected with any illegal acts. Such as a torrent file that is used for illegal purposes.

Now OpenBittorrent doesn't host torrent files. But it does host something else - the list of peers. It is a tracker, after all.

So I think any OBT trial will be pretty much like TPB trial. The TPB verdict showed that it is very easy (almost too easy) to become an accessory to a crime in Sweden.

Re:The Reason for This Subpoena (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304248)

TPB was found guilty ..

TPB was never on trial.

TPB was convicted because ..

No, four people were convicted for their actions. The site itself is still legal.

Re:The Reason for This Subpoena (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304332)

TPB wasn't convicted by a technical argument, they were convicted because the court became convinced that they actively encouraged and profited by Piracy, that makes OBT quite a different case.

Re:The Reason for This Subpoena (1)

lacoronus (1418813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304512)

True, the court did find that. But the law they used only requires "willful ignorance", so while different, I suspect that the same law will be used again - especially since it is the only law I know of that defines the rights and responsibilities for an internet service provider (not just providers of connectivity, but also websites etc.).

If OBT is found to be completely unaffiliated with any websites or organizations that do actively commit copyright infringement, then proving "willful ignorance" is that much harder. For example, drug lords may use GPG, but unless you can prove that whoever wrote GPG is in cahoots with said drug lords, they can't be held responsible for aiding and abetting. (Even then, the GPG author would probably not, strictly speaking, be accused of the mere act of writing crypto software.)

The suspicion is this: (1) The people behind TPB say they sold the website, but haven't been able to provide any contracts, money transfers or any trace of said sale. (2) OBT is run by the same, or nearly the same, bunch of people.

The case will be much stronger if those two points can be proven.

An analogy would be this: If I say to person A that "I'm going to kill Joe Bloke", buy a gun at place B, a map at place C and ask person D where I can find Joe Bloke, I'm probably the only one that can be held responsible. But if it then turns out that person A runs the gun shop, map shop and is the same as person D, well, A has problems.

Re:The Reason for This Subpoena (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304658)

TPB wasn't convicted by a technical argument, they judges were paid handsomely by the *IAA.

Fixt.

Re:The Reason for This Subpoena (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304770)

"they were convicted because the court became convinced that they actively encouraged and profited by Piracy,"

The fact that they profited, or not, is completely irrellevant for the question if they did anything illegal or not. It is an issue when determining the ammount of money they would have to pay though.

Persona Coletiva (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304152)

They should consider the many ways of forming legal collective associations. Corporations. And how to caracterize themselves as practically pro-bono collective information-flow-shaping "brokers" (a better word needed). Or information-flow Market-makers. Collateral Monetizers. Information-flow equity condensators.

Ads and donations could then be augmented by loans, fractional reserve self-lending and reciprocal exchange lending leveraged expansion. You know, standard financial banking bubblinflation. Then do a sort of open-community refund, or "bonus"-forecast advanced refund (or some other such gibberish). Distributing money to workers is socialism. Distributing it to clients (and "normal" bribes) is "market development". Distributing it to shareholders is merely good ol' healthy ideal shinig - "glorious" - capitalism.

Plus, there are tax cuts, incentives, and - ventually - bailouts. Maybe they should form up as abstract intermediation-morfing banking financial corporations. Open-community collaborative lawyers ? That sounds hefty.

Ah! Coffee is ready. I'll wake up now...

Euroshock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304182)

Convince them filesharing is good for the Euro. If they actually gestapo-SS go after the ISP-hosts-sharers, all the Swedish and EU's national-debt's unsupported credit-fraction will be exposed. All h* will ensue. The Iceland volcano will move to somewhere near Hadrian's wall. North-Sea drilling will hit a huge cavern and the North-Sea will be half-drained into it - letting Germans, Franch and Britons _walk_ over. They'll reconsider then.

Inevietable (2, Interesting)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304220)

All of this has been set in stone the moment people decided (for sheep-like herd mentality reasons) to flock to BitTorrent, a protocol that depends on centralized trackers and search engines.

BitTorrent is in fact a giant step backwards from the traditional P2P systems that preceded it and light years behind systems like Winny or PerfectDark which feature not only decentralized search but also end-to-end encryption, encrypted disk caches and routing that attempts to provide full anonymity.

But then again, some people are incapable of learning about foibles of fads any other way then the hard way.

I foresee that within few years we will see a rapid decline of BitTorrent, after majority of trackers and search websites are brought down by a combination of draconian penalties, scare tactics aimed at ISPs and similar aggressive measures .... at which point sanity will prevail over fashion and the development in distributed (and thus for all practical purposes unkillable) systems will resume again.

Re:Inevietable (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304344)

The newer bit-torrent clients support both decentralized tracking and searching.

Re:Inevietable (2, Informative)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304428)

Both of which are after-thought, duct-tape-and-chewing-gum add ons which are incompatible between clients and which suffer from all sorts of swarm fragmentation issues and other flaws brought on by severe deficiencies of the BitTorrent protocol in this area.

BitTorrent was not designed to support such functionality and even with these desperate modifications it is still way behind on other features, such as anonymizing routing, store encryption, steganography etc. In fact by the time you get BitTorrent to do all these things, it won't be BitTorrent anymore but a poor approximation of one of the P2P protocols I mentioned earlier.

Clear answer is of course a P2P protocol that was designed with all of these things in mind from ground-up, i.e. a protocol that assumes a severely hostile environment.

Re:Inevietable (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304492)

I doubt we'll see those features in consumer p2p applications because they'll probably make the speed suck..

Re:Inevietable (3, Interesting)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304576)

I doubt we'll see those features in consumer p2p applications because they'll probably make the speed suck..

Will see? Winny, Share and PerfectDark are fairly old systems that dominate the Japanese P2P scene for many years now. All of them have the features I mentioned, in addition to built-in bulletin-boards, message streams and what not.

Speed problems in the USA and many other places have nothing whatsoever to do with these protocols, but everything to so with pathetic broadband services. BitTorrent is "faster" then older P2P technologies only because it was introduced later when broadband became more available and the general public, in its usual brainless way, decided that BitTorrent was somehow responsible for their perceived speed increase.

In fact BitTorrent has no speed advantage whatsoever when compared to many other P2P protocols, many of them based on exactly the same idea of dividing files into chunks and exchanging them individually.

I wouldn't say that (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304908)

I2P can reach speeds an order of magnitude faster than, say, Tor. You still have to have patience for large torrents, but they do get through just fine ...and with a very high degree of anonymity.

Re:Inevietable (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304426)

I'm not sure, as time progresses more and more people I know are moving away from BitTorrent due to these actions, but not to more decentralised protocols, but to less decentralised services such as rapidshare, etc...

I personally don't understand why. It's like a massive step back, even worse than going to back to FTP due to all the restrictions unless you pay to be a "premium" member. Not to mention that it's even more centralised than before, it makes no sense to me.

Re:Inevietable (2, Interesting)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304474)

I'm not sure, as time progresses more and more people I know are moving away from BitTorrent due to these actions, but not to more decentralised protocols, but to less decentralised services such as rapidshare, etc...

It will last only as long the copyright crusaders take their time to get around to targeting the Rapidshares of the world. Once they go after these sites and after a few spectacular 20-year prison convictions for some of their owners, that loophole will disappear as well. Just a matter of time.

I personally don't understand why. It's like a massive step back, even worse than going to back to FTP due to all the restrictions unless you pay to be a "premium" member. Not to mention that it's even more centralised than before, it makes no sense to me.

The truth is that most Internet users are technological illiterates and on top of that suffer from a severe case of herd mentality. They simply click on all of these "Direct Download 100x Faster!!!" ad links and then tell all their friends about these wondrous "new" ways of "getting stuff". It will take a few well-televised prosecutions of some downloader scapegoats (who all believe themselves to be immune because "downloading" is not "breaking copyright") to put that to rest.

Re:Inevietable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304536)

More like torrent site operators will move to using DHT and magnet links over the current tracker/torrent method of transferring data. Torrent sites themselves will function more like search engines for these links (think Google). When these sites are no longer hosting anything and in fact don't even know the names of what files are being shared (only hashes), how can they be held liable for them? If you went after a site like that, wouldn't you also have to go after Google for doing the same thing?

Re:Inevietable (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304612)

Torrent sites themselves will function more like search engines for these links (think Google).

You clearly were not following the PirateBay legal wrangling developments. Hosting mere magnets is no longer an excuse that lets you avoid legal assault by the copyright crusaders. This was in fact the cornerstone of the massive defeat PirateBay has suffered and set the precedent for all future sites.

Google will also be required to filter all "magnet" or "torrent" links, and is already doing some filtering.

When these sites are no longer hosting anything and in fact don't even know the names of what files are being shared (only hashes), how can they be held liable for them?

The entire point of search websites is that they offer the service of mapping of the file name or description to a torrent (or magnet or hash or whatever). If you remove that functionality, they will no longer serve any purpose whatsoever as "search" engines. If you keep that functionality then you are liable for "facilitating copyright infringement"...

If you went after a site like that, wouldn't you also have to go after Google for doing the same thing?

I already mentioned that Google is gearing up to filter all "torrent" and "magnet" links out, thus avoiding any legal responsibility. And yes, MPAAs of the world would go after Google if Google did not play ball (but it does and so they won't).

Re:Inevietable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304726)

You clearly were not following the PirateBay legal wrangling developments. Hosting mere magnets is no longer an excuse that lets you avoid legal assault by the copyright crusaders. This was in fact the cornerstone of the massive defeat PirateBay has suffered and set the precedent for all future sites.

Google will also be required to filter all "magnet" or "torrent" links, and is already doing some filtering.

Mind providing a link to where this was decided? The "cornerstone" of why the Pirate Bay is having legal issues is the fact that they are running a tracker and hosting torrent files. As I said before, magnet links will not require a tracker so this will no longer be an issue. I think you are underestimating the resilience of bittorrent.

The entire point of search websites is that they offer the service of mapping of the file name or description to a torrent (or magnet or hash or whatever). If you remove that functionality, they will no longer serve any purpose whatsoever as "search" engines. If you keep that functionality then you are liable for "facilitating copyright infringement"...

No it would be mapping a magnet link to a hash in this case. Considering that these sites will have absolutely no way of knowing whether these files are copyrighted or not (remember, they don't even know the file names) how can they be liable?

I already mentioned that Google is gearing up to filter all "torrent" and "magnet" links out, thus avoiding any legal responsibility. And yes, MPAAs of the world would go after Google if Google did not play ball (but it does and so they won't).

I've seen evidence of google filtering torrents, but not magnet links. And there is good reason for that distinction. If you can find evidence to the contrary please let me know.

Re:Inevietable (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304840)

Mind providing a link to where this was decided? The "cornerstone" of why the Pirate Bay is having legal issues is the fact that they are running a tracker and hosting torrent files. As I said before, magnet links will not require a tracker so this will no longer be an issue. I think you are underestimating the resilience of bittorrent.

Pirate bay tracker has been offline for ages now. What the courts decided was that PirateBay itself "facilitated copyright infringement" and that is enough for both torrent files (which also do not contain any copyrighted data and which was what the defense of PirateBay was hanging on) as well as for magnet links. In this regard there is no difference at all because the charge of "facilitation" can be made irrespective of how many and how convoluted your levels of indirection get from the actual copyrighted file.

No it would be mapping a magnet link to a hash in this case. Considering that these sites will have absolutely no way of knowing whether these files are copyrighted or not (remember, they don't even know the file names) how can they be liable?

Did I not just explain to you that "not knowing the file names" renders such "search" sites utterly useless? What then are you using these "search" websites for? Do you enter hex numbers to search for hex numbers? Do you actually have a clue about what you are talking about? I knew I should not answer ACs ...

I've seen evidence of google filtering torrents, but not magnet links. And there is good reason for that distinction.

There is no distinction. Both do not contain any copyrighted information in themselves and both are primarily used to locate copyrighted information with intent of copyright infringement.

Re:Inevietable (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305014)

It may take the demise of normal Bittorrent before pent up demand for sharing leads people in a new direction.

In the case of I2P, at least its being steadily developed and has continued to grow for over 5 years now. I think this reflects the great care the devs have been taking to create something that is entirely decentralized, anonymous with encrypted onion routing, yet has acceptable transfer speeds.

will appeal (5, Informative)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304696)

apparently the article was written before word reached torrentfreak about an important development.

teliasonera says it feels so strongly about user privacy that it will take the matter all the way to the swedish supreme court.

"'what we have done today is to announce to the public that we will appeal,' patrik hiselius, the senior adviser of public affairs of the swedish-finnish firm told AFP, adding the company had until june 7th to submit its appeal."

more here [thelocal.se]

- js.

Re:will appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304898)

what bullshit. If it was a child porn website or a terrorist website they would hand over the customers details within seconds.
Picking and choosing which laws you want to obey doesn't work.
I hope they get fined into oblivion. they know exactly what the fuck that custoemr does,a nd that 99% of the content is copyright infringing.
Oinly a bunch of childish pseudo-communist pricks on slashdot think there is any justification for hiding the identity of a torrent tracker owner.

Re:will appeal (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304934)

And evidently, so does the Swedish ISPs.

Hollywood...prolific home of fertilizer bombs (1)

gridsleep (230884) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304746)

99% of what Hollywood turns out is crap that isn't worth paying for, anyway. No bit loss. I've never seen anyone complain so much when their pile of manure is stolen.

IP Range (1)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304892)

Why is it so expansive?

shredding? (3, Insightful)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305028)

Can't they just do what governments and big companies do? Say 'golly gosh, all that got accidentally shredded, we have launched an internal inquiry whose results will remain secret' ?

Foreign Spider Webs (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32305030)

Here we go again. A poster in America now must be concerned about foreign laws. Foreign laws should only effect foreign people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...