Beta
×

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!

Federal Court Issues Permanent Injunction For Isohunt

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the federal-prisons-are-actually-nicer-than-most dept.

The Courts 212

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from NewTeeVee: "Judge Stephen Wilson of the US District Court of California, Southern District, issued a permanent injunction (PDF) against the popular torrent site Isohunt yesterday, forcing the site and its owner Garry Fung to immediately prevent access to virtually all Hollywood movies. The injunction theoretically leaves the door open for the site to deploy a strict filtering system, but its terms are so broad that Isohunt has little choice but to shut down or at the very least block all US visitors. ... The verdict states that they have to cease 'hosting, indexing, linking to, or otherwise providing access to any (torrent) or similar files' that can be used to download the studios' movies and TV shows. Studios have to supply Isohunt with a list of titles of works they own, and Isohunt has to start blocking those torrents within 24 hours."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their work (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307620)

Wildcard Studios is allowing the MPAA to use the name of their movie "*" in their list of films to block.

Re:I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their wor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307708)

And SQL databases use % as a wildcard, so too bad. Your joke fails.

Re:I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their wor (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307778)

No worries, that's the name of the sequel.

Re:I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their wor (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307836)

Well, at least IsoHunt can introduce ban for certain movie names that studios need to tell them. Swedish courts made three injunctions yesterday [torrentfreak.com] which,

1) Took OpenBitTorrent tracker completely down
2) Banned TPB (ex-)admins from working with the site or any other torrent related site in the future
3) Ordered the upstream provider of TPB to stop serving bandwidth to them.

With ACTA and all of these recent developments, I don't think piracy will be so widespread for many more years. It's great theres good services like Spotify and Steam now though - just need similar for TV shows and movies now (and Voddler is coming).

Re:I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their wor (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307998)

ACTA will change the cat and mouse game. If the bar is raised so there is no piracy (such as on the PS3), there will be a fundamental shift to OSS projects, and the IP battle will then be fought on the patent trolls versus OSS project maintainers front.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Right now, BitTorrent + proxies, or BitTorrent + addons is good enough. If BT sites get squashed, someone is going to make a replacement that is distributed, using magnet links and distributed trackers. It might even be a distributed filesystem that stores random blocks on random computers in the network, where when a hash of a file is passed to one node, it will grab a range of blocks from some other nodes, and pass the rest of the block requests to still another node. Of course, throttling and blocking encrypted traffic might slow this down, but it would end up being tunneled over SSL, DNS, and other protocols.

Or, USENET would regain popularity and a lot of sites would pop up with a lot of storage and long alt.binaries.* retention.

Re:I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their wor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308122)

"I don't think piracy will be so widespread for many more years"

You don't understand the digital world, then. or people.

Re:I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their wor (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309072)

With ACTA and all of these recent developments, I don't think piracy will be so widespread for many more years.

I don't know about such things, but is it theoretically possible for torrents to work without trackers?

I have a feeling that after ACTA and the RIAA and MPAA and the GNAA have finished changing the laws everywhere, and have done their best, that technology is going to continue to stay one step ahead of them.

Ultimately, I wonder if the only thing they can do that'll stop filesharing is to shut down the Internet. And don't think the members of the RIAA and MPAA wouldn't love to do just that.

Re:I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their wor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308136)

And how do you know the blacklist uses SQL LIKE syntax?

That cracked me up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307756)

rofl

Re:I hear Wildcard Studios just licensed their wor (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309076)

Wildcard Studios is allowing the MPAA to use the name of their movie "*" in their list of films to block.

Being somewhat of a chess buff, I hope I'm still able to download The Search for Bobby Tables.

Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307622)

Fung you!

Last time I checked (5, Informative)

damicatz (711271) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307644)

The last time I checked, Isohunt was based in Canada as was Garry Fung. And last time I checked, Canada was (not yet) part of the US. Just another arrogant American judge who thinks that the entire world should be subject to US rule and law.

Re:Last time I checked (4, Insightful)

lisany (700361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307648)

Wait til you see what happens to Mr. Fung when he (next) attempts to visit the United States.

Re:Last time I checked (5, Insightful)

haderytn (1232484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307682)

Why would he want to do that?

Re:Last time I checked (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307698)

Being that I live in Canada, and get more hassles going into the US then I do Japan, I wouldn't want to travel there either. Despite all the nice touristy types of things you can do. I'd rather travel half way across the world for a vacation now.

Re:Last time I checked (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307742)

Well, you don't even need to travel to US. Just travel to one of the countries (95% of the world) that has extradition treaty with US and they send you there right away, without even having a change to fight against extradition in Canadian court. You better not travel anywhere then.

Re:Last time I checked (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308314)

Good point: Mark Emery (the so-called "Prince of Pot") was extradited from Vancouver to the US yesterday to face 5 years in a US prison for selling pot seeds by mail order (which is punishable in Canada by a $200 fine).

Re:Last time I checked (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308534)

Since when did a C&D order (civil) become a matter for extradition (criminal)?

Re:Last time I checked (1, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308646)

C&D's are extraditable in Canada, not even from province to province. Which of course would be insane if you thought of it any other way.

Of course people like to bring out the Mark Emory thing all the time too, but they forget that in the US it's a felony, in Canada it's equivalent to the same thing. Either side of the border it's a federal crime, the only difference is the amount of punishment you get for it. Sorry potheads, but that's the way life works. Canada is still 10yrs away from decriminalizing it.

Re:Last time I checked (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307906)

And I'm guessing you won't have to be electronically strip-searched in order to do it. That's another win.

Re:Last time I checked (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308226)

+1. I used to travel all the time to the US - Vegas 4 or 5 times a year, CA, NY. Now I avoid the country entirely. Plus all our servers have been removed from the US because the Patriot Act permits the government access to our customers' records while making it illegal for anyone to even inform us this has happened - we can't trust our customer data in that sort of environment (we are an entirely legitimate company with 60,000+ employees).

Land of the free? Home of the brave? Not so much...

Re:Last time I checked (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308638)

I don't get why tourists bother with the US either (that has nothing to do with security measures, and BTW I'm USian), but then tourists are bored enough to travel to the Persian Gulf Emirates...

Re:Last time I checked (4, Insightful)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307758)

I am German. Would have no legal problems to enter the USA, but I love them that much that the only reason I'd visit Satan's own country would be that I can leave it with very much more money I entered it. When it comes to a simple vacation there are better and safer alternatives. Like China, Cuba, or North Korea.

Re:Last time I checked (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307884)

Ouch dude.

Re:Last time I checked (2, Informative)

Calinous (985536) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307990)

I don't think North Korea is safer than US of A - just that they will treat you less like a criminal.

Re:Last time I checked (2, Insightful)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308060)

I don't think North Korea is safer than US of A - just that they will treat you less like a criminal.

This means it is safer. First as you say, it is less likely they will treat me as a criminal. And if they do, the world is on my side. If the USA treats me as criminal for what reason ever, there will be plenty of brainwashed zombies who will think I must deserve it somehow.

Re:Last time I checked (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308126)

I take it you're thinking of South Korea, North Korea is a dictatorship where they can and do throw random people into work camps under harsh conditions to be worked more or less to death.

Re:Last time I checked (2)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308242)

Believe me, I know the difference between North and South Korea. And when it comes to throwing into jail... The only difference between North Korea and the USA is that one both countries has to construct a pretense.

Re:Last time I checked (2, Interesting)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308560)

" And if they do, the world is on my side."

and the world will do nothing, because you jumped in the shark tank with roast beef strapped to your balls.

I understand that the US govt sucks, but we know that because we're permitted to bitch about it A LOT, and there's nothing we like to do more than bitch about things and post it all over the internet.

Re:Last time I checked (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308674)

and the world will do nothing, because you jumped in the shark tank with roast beef strapped to your balls.

This may be true, or not. Depends on what is politically opportune in that moment.

I understand that the US govt sucks, but we know that because we're permitted to bitch about it A LOT, and there's nothing we like to do more than bitch about things and post it all over the internet.

You are allowed to bitch as long as it has not real consequences. The US government is stable enough to tolerate it. Should you become influential enough to be really heard by the greater masses, which is really hard, you will be labeled as crackpot by your propaganda industry. If this is not enough and you are really annoying for certain groups... From that point on I doubt there will be much difference between your 'democracy' and countries like South Korea.

Re:Last time I checked (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308118)

It's ok, we don't really want you here either, so it's a win-win. ;-)

Re:Last time I checked (-1, Troll)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309068)

Nice to see racism is still alive and well in Germany.

Re:Last time I checked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309158)

Health care?

Re:Last time I checked (4, Funny)

Zorkon (121860) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307700)

Last time I visited the US was about 10 years ago. We have everything we need up here, believe it or not.

Re:Last time I checked (0, Flamebait)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307918)

Last time I visited the US was about 10 years ago. We have everything we need up here, believe it or not.

[citation needed]

Re:Last time I checked (1)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308082)

Re:Last time I checked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308096)

Whoooosh!

Re:Last time I checked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308392)

United States is by far Canada's largest trading partner, with more than $1.7 billion CAD in trade per day in 2005. 81% of Canada's exports go to the United States, and 67% of Canada's imports are from the United States.[17] Trade with Canada makes up 23% of America's exports and 17% of its imports.
-Economy of Canada [wikipedia.org]

Apparently not "everything" :)

Having traveled north of the border a few times I can agree with your general sentiment, Canada is a nice place.
Though not as different as some people (north and south) would like others to believe.

Re:Last time I checked (4, Informative)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307760)

As a Canadian citizen who has visited the US a few times in the past, I'm actually scared to travel to your country, knowing what I know about what you do to some of your guests.

I'll stay up here, thanks.

Re:Last time I checked (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308458)

Well, you seem like an ass, so I'm glad you're staying up there.

Re:Last time I checked (1)

eyeb1 (522766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308040)

why would he possible want to do that ..

but yes WE .. meaning the vast majority of humanity must do as the amero-zionist corporate empire demands .. or risk a nuclear attack either by bombs or DU munitions .. or the amero-zionist's favorite WMD economic sanctions ..

while the number is debated even a former us general admits that over 1.5 million iraqis .. mostly children died as a result of us lead ecomonic sanctions against iraq ..

Re:Last time I checked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308504)

I honestly dont see why anyone would want to visit USA these days. You are treated as a terrorist already as soon as you arrive on US soil.

Re:Last time I checked (1)

Flakeloaf (321975) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307916)

Just imagine what they want to do to him in Iran for hosting all of that capitalist filth.

Seriously though, so a judge in another country thinks I'm breaking his laws. Okay. That's nice. Good for him. What does he expect me to do about it?

Re:Last time I checked (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308154)

Extradition, is one possibility for some matters. Which is why it's a good idea to be mindful of what countries you're doing business with. The prince of pot will be doing 5 years in the US because he opted to send his seeds here. Nobody forced him to send them to the US. Had he restricted himself to Canada, he wouldn't be going to prison.

Re:Last time I checked (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308832)

Speaking as a US citizen:

Shame on us for forcing our fascist crap on others.

Also shame on Canada for agreeing to extradite one of its citizens to face our fucked-up justice system.

Appeal in Canada (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307940)

He should file an appeal ... in Canada. The US just established cross-border jurisdiction (a court order in one country can be applied to another), so it would now be valid.

Re:Appeal in Canada (2, Interesting)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308340)

He should file an appeal ... in Canada. The US just established cross-border jurisdiction (a court order in one country can be applied to another), so it would now be valid.

 

I have to confess, I'm an engineer/scientest not a lawyer*. Can he get an injunction to block enforcement of the previous injunction? Dueling injunctions? My pride is hurt by the America bashing (wouldn't yours be too, if it were your mother counry?), but I feel anger at the wrongness of the situation.

 

* scientests study nature to learn laws, not just make them up on the spot like lawyers (and mathematicians)

Re:Appeal in Canada (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309254)

I feel the wrongness in one country's laws being applied to someone in another country. If I rob a bank here in the USA, I would expect to be subject to the laws of the USA (if I get caught). What would make no sense would be for Canada to charge me with murder and conduct the trial in Canada. But that's a criminal matter, too. The cause this story is about is a civil matter. Imagine being sued by someone in Canada, in a Canadian court, even though you have never set foot in Canada ... and perhaps for something that is not a tort in the USA but is so in Canada (or for a criminal matter, is legal in the USA but illegal in Canada). Extradition is supposed to be for things like committing a murder in the USA and running off to Canada to avoid prosecution by USA. The extradition is to take you back to the USA. And this story is about an injunctive court order ... basically telling someone what to do ... in another country. I don't want the precedent to be set that would allow some judge in some other country to be able to issue orders and expect me to obey them.

Re:Last time I checked (5, Informative)

blitzd (613596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307952)

Living in a border city, we cross several times a year from Windsor to Detroit (shopping, sporting events, etc) and each and every time we enter the US my ass puckers up. I HATE entering the states even though I have absolutely nothing to hide... it's brutal.

Vacationing is a pain in the ass too. We usually fly out from Detroit metro, so we always have a hard time in the airport coming back home. They just can't seem to grasp why Canadians from Windsor would fly out of, and into, Detroit.

Re:Last time I checked (2, Informative)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308068)

Living in a border city, we cross several times a year from Windsor to Detroit (shopping, sporting events, etc) and each and every time we enter the US my ass puckers up. I HATE entering the states even though I have absolutely nothing to hide... it's brutal.

Brutal? What are you subject to? I'm curious to see if your experiences are much different than mine when I fly domestic.

Re:Last time I checked (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309140)

It depends on your last name. They got it into their heads that evilness depends on how foreign your last name sounds.

Re:Last time I checked (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308102)

Being an American living in a Southern border city, I cross several DHS checkpoints [checkpointusa.org] to travel laterally across the country and each and every time my ass puckers up. They run dogs around my car and send me to secondary because I lose the staring contest or they're in a bad mood. I HATE being asked where I'm going and what I'm doing even though I'm the lone person in the car, Caucasian, never having travelled to Mexico.

Worse, the constitution-free zone extends 100 miles inland. [wordpress.com] That region is where I spend 95% of my time.

Re:Last time I checked (-1, Troll)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308668)

That's odd. Why the puckerage?

I don't mind being pulled over for checkpoints, often socialize smoothly witht the LEOs (I speak fluent "Government"), and I thank them for filtering out the trash (and use that term, I'm not Politically Correct). The Feds can stick a vehicle checkpoint in front of my house for all I care. I'll sell 'em donuts.

Re:Last time I checked (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308798)

That's odd. Why the puckerage?
The Feds can stick a vehicle checkpoint in front of my house for all I care.

( So if you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind if I place hidden cameras in your bathroom ceiling fan and watch you shower and shit? After all, you're not doing anything illegal and you have nothing to hide, right? Everybody shits, right?

You are a goddamn retard. Not being watched, poked, and prodded like a goddamn animal in a zoo is a right that should be afforded to every American[and preferably foreign tourists who want to give us a hand and spend their money here, especially in this economy]. Do you seriously believe that we're under constant threat of terrorist attacks and that those checkpoints will do anything to stop the few who would want to hurt us?

As for your relationship with the LEO -- hanging out in chat rooms and pretending to be a 13 year old girl does not make you a federal agent, it makes you a useful idiot looking for a pat on the head.

Damn, trolled again. Also, you're going from friend to foe -- I have no problem with different opinions as long as they aren't just retarded. )

Re:Last time I checked (4, Insightful)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308864)

Hopefully most here know the significance of the phrase "papers please" and its origins and this post reminds me of that phrase. So I went to YouTube and entered "papers please". One might expect old war movie footage. Instead, video upon video of US cops and "papers please". But the politicians and patriots tell us we are free, so we are, right?

Re:Last time I checked (4, Informative)

Pinhedd (1661735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307960)

Isohunt was initally based in the US and were still based in the US when the lawsuit was filed by the MPAA. They moved to Canada afterward. Last I checked, isohunt had blocked all access to US visitors a long time ago

Re:Last time I checked (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308346)

The last time I checked, Isohunt was based in Canada as was Garry Fung.

That doesn't mean Isohunt and Fung have no assets that can be reached in the states. No substantial corporate presence in the states.

Great news. (-1, Troll)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307728)

I'm going to celebrate tonight.

Re:Great news. (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307958)

I'm going to celebrate tonight.

I hope your celebration won't entail overeating or drinking to excess, because if you're going to do that everytime Big Media hits the Wack-A-Mole, you're going to ruin your health.

movies on... ISOhunt? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307754)

Can someone clue me in to why isohunt was hosting movies/music in the first place?

Re:movies on... ISOhunt? (5, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307782)

Can someone clue me in to why isohunt was hosting movies/music in the first place?

Because they're they favorite food of isos, and isohunt was luring them in for the kill.

Re:movies on... ISOhunt? (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308334)

It wasnt. It was just indexing people who might have pointers to where they could be found.

But to answer the question you were trying to ask, backing up a DVD as an .iso file is perfectly normal and sensible.

Re:movies on... ISOhunt? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309202)

Yea, I wrote "host" but thought "track" - yay for editing (er...)

This proves how clueless (1)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307798)

Again, this proves just how utterly clueless judges (and politicans) are of how the Internet actually works.

Re:This proves how clueless (3, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307842)

Again, this proves just how utterly clueless judges (and politicans) are of how the Internet actually works.

It proves how clueless the geek is about how the law works.

Re:This proves how clueless (4, Insightful)

Capt_Morgan (579387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307912)

Actually we all know how it works... It's very simple. The law is whatever appointed, corrupt judges say it is... and generally is applied differently to those with wealth and power

Re:This proves how clueless (0, Troll)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308010)

Actually we all know how it works... It's very simple. The law is whatever appointed, corrupt judges say it is... and generally is applied differently to those with wealth and power

Which the geek never admits to having.

Even when his income is substantially above the median for his home state, city or county.

Re:This proves how clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308228)

the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek the geek

Going slightly off-topic but did you know that most of your posts on slashdot are of the form "the geek doesn't X Y" ? Have you considered changing the way you construct sentences? While I would agree with most of your posts, your inability to express yourself in anything other than sentences of that form make you sound like a tool.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308262)

wealth AND power. Not wealth OR power.

A geek knows the difference.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307996)

What country are YOU in? Do laws in OTHER countries apply to YOU when YOU are NOT in those other countries, at all?

Re:This proves how clueless (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308044)

What country are YOU in? Do laws in OTHER countries apply to YOU when YOU are NOT in those other countries, at all?

Just a friendly tech-support related tip, I think there may be an intermittent issue with your shift or caps lock key. You might want to get that checked out.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308080)

What country are YOU in?

Belgium

Do laws in OTHER countries apply to YOU when YOU are NOT in those other countries, at all?

Yes

Some countries have laws prohibiting their citizens from doing certain things in other countries.
(note: I am a citizen of one such country)

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308238)

But that's a law in your country applying to you when you are outside of your country. That's perfectly normal - US tax laws apply to US citizens outside the US for example.

That is fundamentally different from a country you are not in and not a citizen of acting as if its laws apply to you. Which is what is being asked.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308250)

yeah, but that's one of your Belgian laws that apply to you, as a Belgian, in other countries. We have similar in the UK (go abroad to kiddie-fiddle and you're still going to gaol despite committing the offence in another country, like Thailand).

That's not the same as another country's laws applying to you when you are in Belgium. Unless that country is America which expects everyone to be subject to their laws (and customs) no matter where you are, but that doesn't apply to Americans with other country's laws, like say Iraq's and American mercenaries.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309100)

Belgium

Potty-mouth! Let's have less of your disgusting profanities here, please.
[Apologies to non-EU readers, and those unaware that naughtier words exist than fuck and cunt]

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

linear core (1692640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308168)

Italy sure thought so with Google.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308918)

Google is different case. They have branch offices in several countries. Probably one in Italy (since they have one in Brazil).

So they are subject to those countries laws.

Re:This proves how clueless (1, Offtopic)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307892)

Again, this proves just how utterly clueless judges (and politicans) are of how the Internet actually works.

Uh, which part actually proves that? Actually:

The verdict states that they have to cease 'hosting, indexing, linking to, or otherwise providing access to any (torrent) or similar files' that can be used to download the studios' movies and TV shows.

I think they know really well that the site isn't actually hosting anything but providing torrent files "that can be used to download the studios movies and tv shows".

It really doesn't matter that they're only hosting the .torrent files and the files are being transferred by users. I thought it would be quite clear to everyone already.

Re:This proves how clueless (0, Troll)

jjoelc (1589361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308008)

Again, this proves just how utterly clueless judges (and politicans) are of how the Internet actually works.

Uh, which part actually proves that? Actually:

The part where anyone that wants to can just connect to isohunt through a proxy, or that 2000 other sites both better and worse have/will pop up to replace it.

The MPAA seems to be following the same tactics (kindof, bear with me) cops use to try and stop drug use... Tell everyone to just say no and try to marginalize users as criminals and undesirables... Start ramping up penalties for small users, then start going after the bigger fish... Slowly working up the chain until...

Until they catch themselves??

Re:This proves how clueless (1, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308150)

Uh, which part actually proves that? Actually:

The part where anyone that wants to can just connect to isohunt through a proxy, or that 2000 other sites both better and worse have/will pop up to replace it.

That still doesn't say anything about if the judge is clueless. If there is a proxy or someone is actively trying to circumvent the country restriction, it's not isohunt's problem anymore. And what mostly matters is that majority of users, especially casual ones, won't go for the trouble just to access isohunt, and it might make them think what they're doing might be illegal because you have to use proxies and all other tricks just to access the site.

Other sites might pop up but that doesn't mean it's useless to do something about one site. Just like if you're driving drunk you can't say that "but there are 2000 other drunk drivers in this country, why you punish me!". There's also a limit of people wanting to create such sites, especially if it carries harsh punishments.

Not that I agree with the injunction, but I don't think they're clueless. They're just concentrating on the things that matter most and not going to the single details like possibility of proxies and circumvent.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308056)

The only way to comply with it would be to download every single torrent and check the contents manually BEFORE posting the link. Which is only possible in theory.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

jjoelc (1589361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307898)

I agree 100%.. but I also have to wonder WHY it is up to the site to prevent US users from accessing it. If it is legal in his country, but not in others, how is it HIS responsibility to police its' use in those other countries? Shouldn't it be up to the individual to run the risk of violating the law? You can't really claim isohunt is in the distributing end of things either. Technically, it would be the ISPs and hosting providers that are distributing...

Again, not like this will change anything for anyone, other than maybe a couple of bookmarks by people who don't know any better, or are SO loyal to isohunt that they go through a proxy...

Re:This proves how clueless (2, Insightful)

VTI9600 (1143169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307942)

Again, this proves just how utterly clueless judges (and politicans) are of how the Internet actually works

Heh...yeah. Those idiots think that torrents actually get used for piracy!..And that its not completely impossible to write a regex to filter out a list of file names. Oh, wait.

Re:This proves how clueless (2, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307972)

And clueless about international borders.

Re:This proves how clueless (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308028)

Why do you expect them to be less clueless than the vast majority of the people they serve and represent?

Especially considering that their expertise is in non-technological fields?

Who Cares? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307880)

Isohunt was way past its prime anyway and begging to be put out of its misery. Remember, its just an index site that scraped other sites and posted their links. It never had its own tracker. It never verified torrents (in any effective way at least). In the early days, it was a slightly better option than TBP because it indexed multiple sites, but it has really run its course. There are better torrent sites for those who wish to continue their swashbuckling ways. And what were these guys thinking hosting this in Canada anyway? The canuks have copyright laws too and are real friendly with the us.

Is this really the end? (2, Insightful)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307914)

I wonder how much of his traffic is actually from the US.

And how is he supposed to prevent someone from setting up "http://isohunt.mydomain.notus" to just proxy Isohunt so he can anyway get hits on his adverts? If the proxy would siphon off some of the ads for their own income stream, this might be an interesting business model.

beneficial copyright infringement (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308274)

And how is he supposed to prevent someone from setting up "http://isohunt.mydomain.notus" to just proxy Isohunt so he can anyway get hits on his adverts? If the proxy would siphon off some of the ads for their own income stream, this might be an interesting business model.

I know it's bad form to reply to one's own post, but I just now understood that this idea is an interesting example where copyright infringement is directly beneficial to the party whose content is being infringed upon.

I can just imagine Fung half-heartedly suing the proxy site(s) for infringement, just so he can CYA with respect to the injunction.

A better PDF link (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308012)

Can we please not have links that go to crazy sites with silly programming that wants your password to other sites? How about just a straight link that gets the file. Why can't Slashdot just host the PDF?

Re:A better PDF link (4, Funny)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308100)

Someone should set up a torrent for that.

Re:A better PDF link (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308176)

would have to use a tracker other than isohunt though...

ISO Hunt disagrees with the summary (1, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308088)

From the ISOHunt website:

Despite rumors that we are ordered to filter by keywords for the US, there's only a proposed order, no actual order. Freedom of speech, non-infringing use and technical implementability issues are still being debated in further court briefs. We have not done any keyword filtering and are fighting all we can not to

I don't have the legal skills to know which one is right, but ISOHunt is still not actually filtering.

Re:ISO Hunt disagrees with the summary (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308114)

I don't have the legal skills to know which one is right, but ISOHunt is still not actually filtering.

For which country? The one the (proposed) order would have to be enforced in?

Re:ISO Hunt disagrees with the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308400)

Look at the date on that. April 5. He may have to change his tune.

Re:ISO Hunt disagrees with the summary (3, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308512)

Despite rumors that we are ordered to filter by keywords for the US, there's only a proposed order, no actual order.

The isoHunt announcement is dated April 5 Annonucements [isohunt.com] . The permanent injunction was filed May 20th. isoHunt Permanent Injunction [scribd.com]

The court had this to say about its right to act:

The Court further clarifies that this injunction covers any acts
of direct infringement, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 106, that take place
in the United States. To the extent that an act of reproducing,
copying, distributing, performing, or displaying takes place in the
United States, it may violate 17 U.S.C. 106, subject to the generally
applicable requirements and defenses of the Copyright Act.

As
explained in the Court's December 23, 2009 Order, "United States
copyright law does not require that both parties be located in the
United States. Rather, the acts of uploading and downloading are each
independent grounds of copyright infringement liability." Summary
Judgment Order at 19. Each download or upload of Plaintiffs'
copyrighted material violates Plaintiffs' copyrights if even a single
United States-based user is involved in the "swarm" process of
distributing, transmitting, or receiving a portion of a computer file
containing Plaintiffs' copyrighted content.

One of these days: (2, Insightful)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308162)

The American government will have to claim a military state over everywhere they distribute copyrighted content to, to "get this under control".

only when the majority of people in the world are sitting at their computers with an armed guard watching to ensure that each and every one of us is complying with american copyright laws, will they get to maintain their fucking Draconian laws.

at which point, the people getting paid to watch people will begin thinking they're "entitled to a little piracy, as they're the ones enforcing it" and that whole system will fall apart.

which brings us back to the issue at hand. change. continue changing to meet the needs of your people, or stand aside and let somebody else try.

because what you're doing obviously isn't working.

Freedom (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308356)

All torrent sites should drop to FreeNet. In fact torrent swarms should drop to FreeNet as well.

Studios still don't understand technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308642)

Studios have to supply Isohunt with a list of titles of works they own.

So what? Okay, let's say Isohunt blocks torrents with filenames similar enough to the studios lists. Now what?

Terminator2-[DVDRip]-[EnglishEspanol].torrent just becomes H5sghfa35tgAC.torrent. The resulting file could still be named Terminator2-[DVDRip]-[EnglishEspanol].mp4. Or even H5sghfa35tgAC.dat for that matter.

How clueless is the federal court and the people running those studios?

Knockoff time (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308732)

I can see a knockoff coming, see Mininova etc...

BINHunt.org anyone? MDFHunt.org?

Time to register some domains!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?