×

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!

9th Circuit Affirms IsoHunt Decision; No DMCA Safe Harbor

timothy posted about a year ago | from the disproportion-nation dept.

The Courts 211

crankyspice writes "The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed, in Columbia Pictures Industries v. Fung (docket no. 10-55946), the summary judgment and injunctions against Gary Fung and his IsoHunt (and 3d2k-it) websites, finding liability for secondary copyright infringement for the sites' users' BitTorrent (and eDonkey) file sharing, under the 'inducement' theory (set forth by the Supreme Court in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. , 545 U.S. 913 (2005)). The injunctions were left largely intact, with modifications required to make it more clear to the defendants what BitTorrent (etc) related activity they're enjoined from." Bloomberg has a short article on the case, too.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

211 comments

somebody refresh my memory... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260249)

Why was it, again, that anyone ever gave the legal system any say over what happens on or with the internet?

It existed for decades without so much as their awareness, and did arguably a lot better than it's doing now, with fewer problems, less stifling of rights, no big brother style monitoring, and so on.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (5, Insightful)

emagery (914122) | about a year ago | (#43260273)

You're kidding, right? The law can be abused, sure, but so can the internet... and when people need a recourse, what else have they got but the law?

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260339)

> The law can be abused, sure, but so can the internet... and when people need a recourse, what else have they got but the law?

Yet, that wasn't actually a problem for the first few decades. If people didn't like some part of the itnernet, they were free not to go there. Happened all the time on usenet. Somebody says something you don't like? Killfile 'em and that's that. The worst they could do is badmouth you, and nobody was stupid enough to believe slander about somebody posted to usenet, so that made fuck-all difference.

Then, one day, AOL came along, and at first tens of thousands, and then millions of people suddenly complained, "Hey, there are things here we don't like!!!one11!! Somebody should DO something!!" Then the legal system said, "Hey, waydaminnit! We don't have control over this internet thingy - people are doing things without our permission, and we MUST have control over it". And other legal systems agreed, because the internet was insulting their god / way of life / whatever.

And from there on, it's been downhill. The end game is NOT going to be something nice.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260487)

And just to add to this point(that we solved our problems just fine without arbitrary mandate of some distant central planner), it is a fundamental misapprehension of reality to suggest that we can go to 'the law' for help. When seeking recourse, what can 'the law' do? It can threaten people with violence. That is its sole means; that is its nature. Whom does it offer this service? Those that bribe it(or more precisely, those who are part of it and seek to use it to serve their interests outside of government).

To say that the average person can go to 'the law' for salvation is just silly. The best we can hope for is a case that serves those in power such that we could simply ride on the coat tails of the lawyers, bureaucrats and corporate suits. Or perhaps a popular case with the public that gives 'the law' reason to throw us some crumbs.

So not only were we fine before the encroachment of 'the law', we don't have an alternative solution now. Instead we have the very prevention of a solution.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#43261205)

The law is the "alternative solution", SOE for human societies are warlords and demigods. And no "we" were not just fine without the law, wander outside your village and the kings men will kill you, stay inside the village and you will be counted as his property. Really mate, read some history or visit the Congo for fuck's sake because you have no idea what your world would be like without the rule of law.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (3, Interesting)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43261331)

You seem to confuse the Internet with the physical world. Sorry to pop your bubble, but both things are very different. Anarchy never worked and won't likely ever work in the physical world. It worked very well for a decades in the Internet though.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261403)

Anarchy never worked and won't likely ever work in the physical world. It worked very well for a decades in the Internet though.

How's that rose tint working out for you?

The Internet was never a realm of anarchy. At best, it was a frontier space - similar to 'moving out West' back in the old days.

It's rather sad that our last great frontier (talk to me not about space - we won't see it as an actual frontier in our lifetimes) was virtual. It's even sadder that its time has passed. The Internets are civilized now, and more's the pity.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#43261369)

Yet, that wasn't actually a problem for the first few decades.

Actually it was. The problem was that it wasn't as easily packaged and a lot of it was underground. Back in the day you could easily pirate games, music (and even on a 56kbps modem back then it was faster to download than to rip a CD), and whatnot but you need to be either very good at finding something or needed to know someone. From then on it was typically typing an IP address of an FTP server.

These days the damn things show up as the top results on a google search. The internet became a target when it became simple enough to use for the lowest common denominator, that is 6 year olds, grandmas, and RIAA employees.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260857)

and when people need a recourse, what else have they got but the law?

Smith and Wesson?

The law comes to Deadwood. (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#43260427)

Why was it, again, that anyone ever gave the legal system any say over what happens on or with the internet?

It's been a long tome since the Internet was the geek's private playground.

Re:The law comes to Deadwood. (5, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43260479)

Maybe we need to create a new one. Perhaps one with beer and hookers?

Re:The law comes to Deadwood. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260759)

That would be blackjack and hookers.

In fact forget the internet and the blackjack

Aw, screw the whole thing

Re:The law comes to Deadwood. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260771)

Like you would know what to do with either of those things...

Re:The law comes to Deadwood. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260895)

Tor hidden services.

Re:The law comes to Deadwood. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261407)

Unfortunately, the most commonly associated things with Tor hidden services are child pornography and drug dealing. Kinda makes for a really bad place to start from if someone decides to try to tear it down.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260741)

Yes, because sending messages through wires allows you to magically transcend all laws. Right.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261209)

Yes, because sending messages through wires allows you to magically transcend all laws. Right.

Making laws about sending message though wires transcend logic in first place. These wires are private for the most part, and the message are private communication between two peers anyway. Also, fuck you.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (3, Insightful)

skywire (469351) | about a year ago | (#43261255)

Assuming you are not a troll, but merely have not bothered to think before writing, allow me to provoke you to exercise your grey matter.

If a group plan a bank robbery via Skype, would you say "Hands off our internet"? If someone blows up a building full of innocents by transmitting a code to an explosive device through a connection over the Internet, should that action be ignored because "We need a free Internet"?

The Internet is simply a communications medium. Like any other, it can be used to commit actual crimes. The problem here is not the state being able to govern acts committed using the Internet. The problem is the unjust copyright laws that outlaw what is no crime at all, and is in fact a boon to mankind: the mere copying of harmless and useful information, whether over the Internet or otherwise.

Re:somebody refresh my memory... (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43261339)

In the same way a person using a phone can order someone to blow a building it can do through the internet. It is not motive to regulate and monitor phone calls neither to regulate the internet though. Many times the harm you do trying to prevent something is orders of magnitude worse than the thing you are trying to prevent. That is true regarding the "War against terrorism" and also regarding the attempts of Internet regulation.

The law is an ass (4, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43260257)

And it is a bought and paid-for ass.

Re:The law is an ass (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260347)

Absent legislation to the contrary, the US Federal courts can be reliably expected to protect capitalism. While many on this board don't seem to think much of digital property rights, both the US Congress and the courts have no problem with them, just as they have no problem with real estate being privately owned with possibly complex patterns of leasing and other negotiations with other parties, or with corporations being privately owned.

Just because hordes of twenty something males at Slashdot, Reddit and similar sites think they have a fundamental right to download whatever they please for free, doesn't mean that the US government and courts will turn their backs on one of this country's major export businesses and sources of comparative economic advantage.

sorry for partyin' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260599)

don't kid yourself. this is just more abuse of government and the court system by the plutocrats. some people seem to think that corporations and intellectual property are codified in the constitution!

i'm a 40 something and have been downloading for 20 years. i suggest removing the stick from your ass.

Re:sorry for partyin' (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43260975)

> some people seem to think that corporations and intellectual property are codified in the constitution!

States play a big part in the legal structure of the US too. And it happens that states have decided to charter corporations.

As far as intellectual property, that is certainly codified in the Constitution.

Re:sorry for partyin' (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#43261223)

As far as intellectual property, that is certainly codified in the Constitution.

Citation needed.

Re:sorry for partyin' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261515)

Article I, section 8, clause 8: [The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

At least make it hard, seriously.

Re:The law is an ass (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year ago | (#43261479)

Just because hordes of twenty something males at Slashdot, Reddit and similar sites think they have a fundamental right to download whatever they please for free, doesn't mean that the US government and courts will turn their backs on one of this country's major export businesses and sources of comparative economic advantage.

Just because the US government and courts think they can legislate innovation and technological progress doesn't mean that the slashdot readers who actually innovate and make technological progress won't call them out on their retarded and ignorant views, either.

Re:The law is an ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261561)

Just because hordes of twenty something males at Slashdot, Reddit and similar sites think they have a fundamental right to download whatever they please for free

Strawman arguments are lies.

Re:The law is an ass (3, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#43260471)

And it is a bought and paid-for ass.

The geek's explanation for his every failure in law, politics and government is bribery.

Re:The law is an ass (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43260501)

It's actually quite a good default position, with incompetence only slightly behind it.

Re:The law is an ass (2, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#43260659)

It's actually quite a good default position, with incompetence only slightly behind it.

The number of federal judges impeached for all causes since 1904 is 10.

Two were acquitted, Six were removed. Two resigned. Impeachment in the United States [wikipedia.org]

NEW ORLEANS - U.S. District Judge Robert F. Collins was convicted yesterday of scheming to split a $100,000 bribe from a drug smuggler, making him the first federal judge in the 200-year history of the judiciary to be found guilty of taking a bribe.

Federal Judge First Ever Convicted Of Taking Bribe [nwsource.com] [June 30, 1991]

When confronted by fact, the geek retreats into fantasy,

Re:The law is an ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260727)

That being said, there's also a difference between taking a bribe, and getting caught taking a bribe.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260745)

The amount of convictions or impeachments do not directly relate to the amount of perpetrations.

Lets try an analogy. Look at speeding tickets. Compared to the amount of people that break that law, the percentage that get tickets is incredibly low.

Now, is it your turn to retreat to fantasy?

Re:The law is an ass (2)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about a year ago | (#43260751)

The amount of convictions or impeachments do not directly relate to the amount of perpetrations.

Especially when the system is meant to be "self-policing" - that is always a recipe for abuse or at least neglect.

Re:The law is an ass (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43260959)

The percentage of people that get speeding tickets is FAR higher than the percentage of judges that get impeached for accepting bribes.

Next.

Re:The law is an ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261547)

Which says nothing about the ratio of perps to cons in either case. But thanks for playing.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260945)

You mean the legal system full of corrupt people hasn't convicted many corrupt people? I'm shocked. SHOCKED!

Re:The law is an ass (2, Insightful)

blankinthefill (665181) | about a year ago | (#43260983)

What exactly do you call the case of Clarance Thomas not recusing himself from the decision on the AFA? It may not be bribery, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that it was all honest or just. Or how about the case of the Kids for Cash scandal? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal ) Not a federal judge, I grant you, but still a judge. And that's just two examples off the top of my head. I don't think there's necessarily much direct bribery going on... but that's not the same thing as saying the system is honest, either.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about a year ago | (#43261151)

The problem is laws paid for by special interests or imprecise laws.

Judges for the most part are unelected so you don't want them making law. It's also not their job.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#43261311)

Your wasting your breath, people (geeks or otherwise) tend to project their own weak principles onto others. The rich tend to bitch about environment and consumer laws, file sharers bitch about IP laws, I bitch about laws forbidding me to smoke weed. Nobody likes the law when it disagrees with them. Many people rationalize that by claiming judges must be for sale because deep down they know money is the only thing that will tempt them to break their own principles.

Re:The law is an ass (5, Interesting)

pdabbadabba (720526) | about a year ago | (#43260913)

Hi. I work for a federal judge. My job is writing what are, in essence, draft opinions. I have long substantive conversations with the judge on virtually every opinion we issue. I have a lot of friends who do the same thing. So believe me when I say that if the judge I worked for, of if the judges my friends were working for were being offered bribes, I would definitely know about it. He isn't, and they aren't. Not even close. It just does not happen. Sorry.

And let me add: we are very very good at our jobs. We aren't perfect, and the law often isn't as clear as one would like. But suffice it to say that nine times out of ten, if you aren't a lawyer and you think a decision is crazy or wrong, the more likely explanation is that you just don't know the law that's being applied. It's definitely not bribery and it probably isn't even incompetence (at least, not on the judge's part.) And, having actually read the opinion and knowing something about the law, I can tell you that this case is no different.

So how about this: before wildly casting accusations of bribery around, why don't you take a few minutes to actually read the opinion and then tell us what you think is wrong with it?

Re:The law is an ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260947)

But that's exactly the problem: laws are being mindlessly enforced.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261221)

Just because members of the judicial branch didn't receive a bribe directly on a case doesn't mean the "law" involved in the case was not passed into law by bribery, signed into law by bribery or enforced strictly and in a given direction by bribery as once those are done in part or wholly the judicial branch is but involved in deciding if said law was broken and what punishment within the prescribed ranges of punishments is to be dealt out if said law has been broken. Clicking back through the "parent" links I don't see where anyone said the judge was bribed but rather that the law "is a bought and paid-for ass". Barring justification for declaring the law to be unconstitutional or via jury nullification, is not the Judicial branch stuck making legal decisions as prescribed by the law in question? Of course the parent did acknowledge that with "(at least, not on the judge's part.)"

Re:The law is an ass (2)

crankyspice (63953) | about a year ago | (#43261267)

Well, the DMCA was a compromise between the interests of ISPs and those of copyright holders -- so, the result of lobbyist dollars. But secondary copyright liability (vicarious or contributory liability for the direct infringement of third parties) is entirely judicially created. There's no statute on the books w/r/t secondary infringement liability. (Federal judges are appointed for life -- they don't campaign, they don't need to run for re-election, I've worked "on the inside" of enough MPAA etc. litigation to know that the rights holders are as much at the mercy of the judiciary as are the tech heroes. Witness how Grokster was decided by Judge Wilson, then by the 9th Circuit, before SCOTUS used it to graft the doctrine of inducement liability onto copyright law...)

Anyway, for everyone asking "why do we let judges rule on / lawmakers govern the Internet" -- the Internet is us. We are the Internet. Just because something occurs over TCP/IP packets instead of in an alley, doesn't make it any less a part of 'the real world,' where real laws apply.

Re:The law is an ass (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43261371)

The problem is how far we want laws to go. Into our actions? Into the internet? Into your words? Into our minds maybe?

I am prepared to accept the need for the first, but the last three are things that on my view should be outside the scope of the law.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261269)

So how about this: before wildly casting accusations of bribery around, why don't you take a few minutes to actually read the opinion and then tell us what you think is wrong with it?

Why should any single one of us actually respond to a DMCA take down notice after this case, when clearly even if we answer every last take down notice with pulling the data requested offline, we STILL will not be granted safe harbor??

When a law says "do this and you won't be an accessory to the crime", and even after doing that we are still an accessory, why even follow the law at all?

Re:The law is an ass (0)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43261359)

So in short: "We are Gods and now better than you. You can't possibly understand our perfect minds. We are justice and you are trash."

Re:The law is an ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261565)

That doesn't even remotely resemble what the grandparent said, and you know it. You're a filthy liar, and you're attacking a strawman because you know you're too stupid to refute even a single word that he actually said. And you're going to confess to that right now, whether you intend to or not.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43261531)

So how about this: before wildly casting accusations of bribery around, why don't you take a few minutes to actually read the opinion and then tell us what you think is wrong with it?

That's the problem - the opinion is long and boring, snappy headlines sell.

Anyhow, isoHunt did the Google defense, which the judge ruled invalid as isoHunt was doing "editorial content" and pointing out specific torrents that were to be of interest. This invalidates any DMCA safe harbour because the site is no longer neutral - the site operators were looking at the site and point out what might be of interest.

DMCA safe harbour only applies when the site treats everything the same.

Re:The law is an ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260919)

Government is born of incompetence, bribery is but an extension of the wants and needs that lead to the governance of society's failures. Such ideas are but Common Sense [ushistory.org]

"Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least."

If anyone has never read it they should at least read the portion linked above. There are links to its entirety at that link. The larger and more powerful government gets the greater the body of evidence of the failure of society. Bribery is but part of the means of diplomacy involved in compromise, some forms legal and others not, with the latter often veiled in the former.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year ago | (#43261137)

And it has been this way for millennia. Tens of thousands of years of people persuading, cajoling, bribing and yes forcing others to do something in their favor. Believing anything else is delusion and fantasy.

The people who understand this use it even more to their advantage and gain power. Those who do not are pawns, victims, chattel or scenery.

Personally I choose mostly to be scenery though I wield the advantage when necessary or in a limited venue. The world stage is too risky for anyone without a legacy to bring to the table.

So yes an individual can act out common sense and be virtuous but when conflicting agendas meet you must throw out common sense and assume corruption will win the day. Good guys finish last, as the saying goes.

Conflict of interest on the part of CNN/FNC/MSNBC (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43260503)

The geek's explanation for his every failure in law, politics and government is bribery.

As I understand it: The average citizen gets information about issues and candidates from one of the major TV news networks. A news source can refuse to cover a particular issue or a particular candidate's campaign. This means the citizen won't be made aware of it. So if TV news networks fail to cover developments in copyright law or candidates who have expressed interest in a balanced approach to copyright, they can influence the behavior of voters. Now guess what conglomerates own the major TV news sources [pineight.com] and would have a reasonable motive and opportunity to exploit their conflict of interest: the parent companies of five of the six studios that make up the MPAA.

Re:Conflict of interest on the part of CNN/FNC/MSN (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about a year ago | (#43261077)

Right. Most people get all their information from a single TV channel, and will never change this TV channel (perhaps their remote is broken?)
TV stations freely ignore candidates they don't like, the way FOX never mentions Obama.
I'm not sarcastic, I can't help talking this way!

Re:Conflict of interest on the part of CNN/FNC/MSN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261345)

ha

I don't watch TV. I do read the news. My source are Slashdot & BBC. Chances are if it isn't tech related or covered by the BBC I wouldn''t see it.

Now I don't know how many different newspapers you read every day or stations you watch although in my experience they tend to all have the same shitty coverage with seemingly from the same perspective. Maybe I'm just too far left for this country. However I think the coverage is piss poor either way.

Re:Conflict of interest on the part of CNN/FNC/MSN (4, Interesting)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43261593)

Here it's Slashdot, BBC, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeerah, ABC, SBS, Sydney Morning Herald, Pravda, South China Post. Sometimes I watch CCTV news as well. Occasionally, I read Pravda in an effort to keep my very rusty Russian language skills from entirely disappearing (okayyyyy... maybe a bit of Soviet nostalgia there, too; so sue me, already, for having grown up in the heyday of the Cold War, and let's get on with it).

I quit bothering very much with CNN or any other US outlet ten years ago... About 5 minutes after I saw how much news *didn't* get reported on the American sites/channels. Which was about 5 minutes after my first evening TV news experience in Australia with ABC, SBS, and BBC.

Shit, last time I was *in* the US, I watched SBS or BBC on my laptop for my news fix. Tried to watch CNN with my Dad, and the cognitive dissonance actually started making my head hurt.

Fortunately, he lives on a lake in Florida; he, his dogs, his fishing boat, and I found lots better things to do most of the time than watching television. :)

Moving away from the US was the smartest damn thing I've ever done in my life--it got me away from the mental poison known as American TV.

Re:Conflict of interest on the part of CNN/FNC/MSN (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43261387)

It doesn't matter, the same few people own all the mainstream channels. Some people actually go out of their way to find the truth, but most people will be spoon fed their news by these few people. In the cases their interests conflict you can infer something from the discrepancies between them, but most of the time their interests converge.

Define bribery (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260715)

Billions of dollars go into 'lobbying' each year, that's not money required to hire the people to express the opinion, that's money funnelled into the political machine directly. With PAC funding, that's pretty much money in the pocket, they can do with PAC money whatever the candidate wants. That money is a bribe in all but name.

The problem here is, the word bribery has lost its meaning because the crime has largely been legitimized.

Geeks make big play about Citizens United, but that just *increased* the bribery by allowing companies to openly bribe politicians.

So yes, bribery it is. Here the copyright holders have a legitimate complaint, but instead they're attacking the third degree from it. Instead of going after the copyright infringement, or the torrent tracker, they're going after a search engine of the torrent trackers. Twice removed from the offense. To drive it through they're conflating the infringement the ISOHunt guy did with the search engine.

Re:The law is an ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260915)

Lobbying is legal bribery and suing people for exorbitant amounts in order to force a settlement is legal extortion.

I wonder how much longer (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260269)

before the record and film industries go after Google [google.com] and its competitors. [bing.com] .

Re:I wonder how much longer (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43260289)

It's about whether you advertise the ability to use a particular service to infringe. Grokster did, and IsoHunt did, according to the article. Does Google?

Re:I wonder how much longer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260329)

Google censors search results to remove ''offending'' hits. You never received message saying that something was removed by DMCA or US Law. Funny how a democracy censors the internet.

Re:I wonder how much longer (5, Informative)

XaXXon (202882) | about a year ago | (#43260443)

Wait. You see exactly this. At the bottom it will say "not showing 5 results Click here to show the DMCA takedown notices at chillingeffects.org"

Also, the takedown notices include the URL to be taken down, so it's still available.

Re:I wonder how much longer (1)

XaXXon (202882) | about a year ago | (#43260445)

Hate not being able to edit...

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+hobbit+torretn&aq=f&oq=the+hobbit+torretn&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l2j64l3.2086&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&q=the+hobbit+torrent&spell=1&sa=X&ei=80tOUdTFBcHgiwKExYDIAg&ved=0CDIQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44158598,d.cGE&fp=d76eed8efe782f95&biw=1440&bih=779 [google.com]

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

Re:I wonder how much longer (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43261363)

thanks for the link, this was interesting and new to me. ironically, the DMCA takedown notice includes over a thousand links to offending material...

Re:I wonder how much longer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260859)

Google is neither the internet (no matter how hard they try) nor a democracy.

Re:I wonder how much longer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260893)

Search engines are the spine though. If it were not for them, we'd be using index services like the old Yahoo to sort category interests. I will admit that I'm going to far fewer sites at this point as I don't have a constantly updating list of all sites of an interest. Instead we get lists of different pages on the same sites with search engines.

Re:I wonder how much longer (1)

X.25 (255792) | about a year ago | (#43261525)

It's about whether you advertise the ability to use a particular service to infringe. Grokster did, and IsoHunt did, according to the article. Does Google?

Hahaha.

So, if I don't advertise that I'm dealing crack near school, I should be safe?

Got it.

Huh? (1)

Sussurros (2457406) | about a year ago | (#43260359)

What does that even mean?

I am so glad I never became a lawyer like my mother wanted me to.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about a year ago | (#43260693)

The DMCA Safe Harbor provision is what allows sites like Youtube to operate. Since Youtube is a fully automated site in which users upload their own content without approval from Youtube on a case-by-case basis, Youtube does not have full control over the content of their website in real time. Without the Safe Harbor provision, any copyrighted material that appears on Youtube would constitute unwillful copyright infringement by Youtube regardless of who put it there. The Safe Harbor provision shields them from primary and secondary liability.

However, obtaining the benefits of the DMCA cannot be done without also adhering to the requirements of the DMCA and the OCILLA (the legal name for the Safe Harbor provision). Several of the requirements set out by these acts include making a good faith effort to prevent copyrighted content from being uploaded or inducing access to copyrighted content. In short, site operators have to perform at least some level of self-policing in order to obtain protection under OCILLA.

In the case of ISOHunt, it's possible to search by various categories including movies, music, applications, etc... as well as view latest releases by the same categories. A quick look at the top torrents, most recent torrents, top cross indexed torrents, and top searches show that the site operators made no effort to prevent copyrighted content from being made accessible.

The court ruled against them not because they engaged in direct infringement themselves, but because they promoted infringement and profited from that infringement. If they wanted the courts to take them seriously, then they shouldn't have displayed "aXXo" and "jaybob" as the top searches on the front page for years on end, especially when those searches yield infringing results. Of the top 1,000 searches on ISOhunt.com right now all of them are in search of either copyrighted content, or downright illegal content.

Re:Huh? (1)

Sussurros (2457406) | about a year ago | (#43260737)

Thank you. Everything is clear now and I've also learned why Youtube hasn't been closed down which is something I've often wondered about.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about a year ago | (#43260833)

Yup. Youtube has a massive number of programs and features, both automated and manual, which are purpose designed to handle copyrighted content. Users are still figuring out novel ways to get around them (such as mirroring a scene from a movie) but Youtube's Copyright handling is the best that I've ever seen and goes way beyond that required by the DMCA

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#43260877)

In short, site operators have to perform at least some level of self-policing in order to obtain protection under OCILLA.

Cite?

It's been a few years since I read the law, but I don't recall any requirements for pro-active policing, only that operators take down allegedly infringing material when presented with a takedown notice, and that they may put it back up if they receive a counter-notice.

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about a year ago | (#43260929)

The service provider must have a terms of service which includes provisions for account suspension and termination for repeat offenders. Simply having a TOS isn't sufficient, they also have to "reasonably implement" it. This can be found under 17 USC 512(i). The policing doesn't necessarily have to be pro-active, it just needs to be active. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that a service provider's TOS is merely a façade and that the service provider is not living up to their obligations under the OCILLA then that may help their case.

If I recall correctly, something along these lines was used against Megaupload (don't quote me on that, I'm not overly familiar with the case).

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261071)

I just run the site. i have no idea what an axxo is or a jaybob.

Sounds like drugs... is it drugs?

Re:Huh? (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43261627)

Dunno if you're trying to be clever or what...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXXo

http://www.jaybob.org/

Now pretend that it's a judge or DA who's just said this (and perhaps displayed the URLs on a screen in... um... I know, a courtroom!), and that it's not just your kindly old Uncle Zon talking at you over his Sunday morning cuppa.

Still feeling clever now?

9th circuit is a joke (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260371)

The 9th Circuit is a joke. It is the most overturned circuit in the country and the laughing stock of the judicial system.

Re:9th circuit is a joke (2, Informative)

Misanthrope (49269) | about a year ago | (#43260507)

It sees more cases, so numerically there are more overturned. On average it's rulings are overturned about as often as any other circuit court in the country.

How does higher population mean joke? (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43260529)

The 9th Circuit is a joke. It is the most overturned circuit in the country

Citation needed that a significantly larger percentage of the Ninth Circuit's decisions are overturned than those of other circuits. The fact is that the population of the Ninth Circuit is larger; therefore more cases will be brought. If more cases are decided, and the same percentage of them are overturned, a greater number of decisions will be overturned.

Don't be so hard on the AC! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260911)

Don't be so hard on the AC! He learned his arithmetic from a Texas high school math book.

Re:How does higher population mean joke? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261243)

The 9th Circuit is a joke. It is the most overturned circuit in the country

Citation needed that a significantly larger percentage of the Ninth Circuit's decisions are overturned than those of other circuits.

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] lent me one of theirs [latimes.com] .

Re:How does higher population mean joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261599)

The article notes the number of cases reversed or vacated in the year 2011. That is not evidence of how often they are overturned on a year-over-year basis, nor a comparison of them to other circuits. In short, the article does not in any way support your claim.

So did you not read the article that you linked, or are you lying about what it says? Those are your only possible choices. Any other response from you (including nothing) is an irretractable confession that the answer is "both".

Re:9th circuit is a joke (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#43260577)

The 9th Circuit is a joke. It is the most overturned circuit in the country and the laughing stock of the judicial system.

It's a meaningless stat when the Supreme Court takes on less than 100 cases a year and perhaps 25 of those will be from the nine states of the Ninth Circuit.

Re:9th circuit is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261313)

It's a statistic without substance, to be sure, but not with meaning. The implied meaning is that the court has too many Democratic-appointed justices and is thus too liberal. The statistic is trotted out whenever a space is opened up on the bench.

This is one of several highly partisan political messages that has been popularly taken up by most Americans, left and right, oblivious to its origin and correctness.

Another famous one is "right-to-work", which carries with it the erroneous implication that non-right-to-work states allow union contracts which require companies to only hire union employees--a so-called "closed shop" (a term which originally meant closed to unions, ironically). This has been illegal nationwide since 1947.

Blood (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260401)

This will go on until the blood of one of these cunts is spilled. ..and I don't mean judges though they probably deserve it for being in their pocket.

Alternatives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260521)

IsoHunt is unique in that it indexes across many sites/trackers. Does anyone knows a good alternative?

Re:Alternatives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260897)

KickAss Torrents, or http://kat.ph has been a "better" alternative to IsoHunt for quite a few years now. Speaking as a formerly heavy user of both, but lately finding my visits to IsoHunt being very rare.

Why do we even need sites like isohunt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260933)

There is DHT, which is a basically distributed map from the torrent hash value into the torrent seed location set.

Why can't similar principle be used for the search by the name of content too?
Then it will be no need for the Iso Hunt or Pirate Bay at all.

Re:Why do we even need sites like isohunt? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year ago | (#43261365)

There is no need. They profit by providing convenience (assuming they make more than the cost to host). Anyone can post a torrent and then send a link out or post it somewhere. Just subvert Twitter or Pintrest or any number of social systems that let you follow someone.

Moral Equivalency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43260963)

This is no different that saying crowbar manufacturers liable for burglaries committed with their tools.

This will get overturned in 3 seconds at SCOTUS, because it has been ruled a million times that you cannot hold the manufacturer of a product that has a lawful purpose liable for the intentional and malicious misuse of that product.

it goes to show ya! (0)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#43261029)

Corporate goons and their corporate henchmen have more power and influence than the patriot citizen has.

DCMA (Adobe's song) SUCKS SO BAD .. (0, Redundant)

balise (82851) | about a year ago | (#43261123)

Why was there no thought applied here? Why should we make
suckiwood wealthy? What is the moral rule that applies? Why make
a game of intersecuring knowledge with one another? Why would
this still be a world of pirates (DCMA) versus us when we could
actually have had a new world ?

I am an artist, by the way. There is no defense here,
except of Capitalist (valueless, useless) "values". Up until
now, we have prospered by keeping intelligence open
and online. THIS IS STUPID.

DCMA => downfall of America.

Ninth Circuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43261393)

The Ninth is also the most notorious for having their appeals overturned by SCOTUS, so there's a sliver of hope.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...