IsoHunt told to pull .torrent files offline, likely to close

It could be the end of the line for IsoHunt, as a federal judge has issued an injunction forcing founder Gary Fung to remove all infringing trackers from the popular site.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/isohunt-told-to-pull-torrent-files-offline-likely-to-close.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[Danathar]

So what? they replace the .torrent files with Magnet URI links.

 

[openaperture]

Same as Mininova right?

 

[reflex-croft]

Another one bites the dust. Its amazing how difficult its getting to find torrents for copyrighted material. Yes you can still find them, but its not all over Google now when you do a basic search on any given piece of media/software.

 

[Jackattak]

Another one bites the dust. Its amazing how difficult its getting to find torrents for copyrighted material. Yes you can still find them, but its not all over Google now when you do a basic search on any given piece of media/software.

Er, you have heard of the number one torrent tracker site in the world, right? http://www.thepiratebay.org

For the record, that's what 90% of the torrenting community uses and they aren't going anywhere. I've never heard of any torrenter using Google, alas I don't know many so that's not saying much.

Something tells me that with your outlook, you don't really do much torrenting, though. Because that was a completely false statement.

 

[Solomonoff's Secret]

edit: beaten and don't see a way to delete comments

 

[Jackattak]

On topic, dunno what Fung was thinking by operating in the US. It was only a matter of time when he was operating within arm's length of the MPAA.

 

[ScratchFury]

Is it legal to distribute .torrent files offline?

 

[SanityKills]

"reflex-croft wrote:
Another one bites the dust. Its amazing how difficult its getting to find torrents for copyrighted material. Yes you can still find them, but its not all over Google now when you do a basic search on any given piece of media/software."

I don't think he was claiming to be the ultimate pirate of illegal data. Pirate Bay may be a major tracker, but as with many proprietary search engines, sometimes it is best to go with the search that indexes multiple search engines instead of jumping from one specific engine to another. He is correct in that yes, Google used to be a reliable source for quick, basic torrent searches which didn't always end at the Pirate Bay.

Who really cares if he does a lot of torrent searches anyway? I don't think his point expressed any intention of presenting himself as an elitist.

 

[Fentras]

I has to be more complex than just files with the .torrent file extention, right? From an *NIX point of view, the extention isn't even needed - stripping it would be compliance with the order as presented here.

 

[Enlarged to Show Texture]

Er, you have heard of the number one torrent tracker site in the world, right? http://www.thepiratebay.org

TPB doesn't run a tracker and, therefore, isn't a tracker site.

 

[Desverger]

Isn't Gary Fung Canadian? Why is this is US court?!?

 

[volt1up]

Is that the longest running torrent site?

 

[tpbar]

Magnet links will take over. There's nothing anyone can do to block that direct download process.

 

[arbguy]

that's too bad, it is the best torrent site for software. well, Gary Fung I owe you one, you provided me with gigabytes of software, but if you close down it looks like I will have to get it from other BT sites or Rapidshare. You are still a hero in my mind, and I hope you continue your struggle against the corporates after this illegal ordeal. in the meanwhile, I will continue to distribute my 500+ GB of music via sneaker networks to the rest of my aquaintances, spanning continents, and we shall progress from there.

 

[Keatre]

Isn't Gary Fung Canadian? Why is this is US court?!?

\/

this Permanent
Injunction enjoins the conduct of Defendants wherever they may be
found, including without limitation in Canada.
10. The Court further clarifies that this injunction only covers acts
of 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. Further, 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.

 

[MarkKB]

I has to be more complex than just files with the .torrent file extention, right? From an *NIX point of view, the extention isn't even needed - stripping it would be compliance with the order as presented here.

Well, no since they'd still be torrent files - they'd just be torrent files without the extention.

 

[DraconisKyrios]

Whether there is another solution or not its how quickly people adopt the new method and and how quickly someone can shut that down. Sure you will never win the race, but how close you can get to first is the question. I can probably safely say that if you make to more difficult to find a solution the people who will pirate will reduce in size *well at least the people with money*

 

[hpsgrad]

Is it legal to distribute .torrent files offline?

Copyright laws vary, so it's hard to say anything simple and comprehensive (choose one). In the US, if a work is copyrighted, you are not permitted to distribute copies of that work unless:
1. you're the copyright holder
2. you have the permission of the copyright holder
3. first sale applies (which means that you have to sell/give away the original physical copy, not another copy)
4. some fair use defense applies.

It's exceedingly unlikely that you're asking about situations where #1 or #2 apply. #3 doesn't apply because the copy you've burned to disk/drive isn't the one from your computer. #4 might apply, but you won't know for sure until you've bankrupted yourself winning a federal suit and outlasting the appeals process. For practical purposes, you're better off relying on the invisibility of sneakernets than on 'fair use'.

In short: almost certainly not.

 

[ShadowNode]

Isn't Gary Fung Canadian? Why is this is US court?!?

\/

this Permanent
Injunction enjoins the conduct of Defendants wherever they may be
found, including without limitation in Canada.
10. The Court further clarifies that this injunction only covers acts
of 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. Further, 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.

How is that even relevant? US law has no more force over Canadians than Sharia.

 

[Acco Grayfox]

Doesn't mean that Gary Fung will shut down isohunt. He'll probably just blacklist all US IP addresses, and operate safely... in Canada... while probably not ever heading down to the states again.

 

[Keatre]

How is that even relevant? US law has no more force over Canadians than Sharia.

Don't ask me, I just read the brief and copy/pasted. That does sound a little iffy/patriot act-y.

Any lawyers out there want to explain how this is possible?

EDIT: I guess it has to do with it's accessible by US, thus falls under US copywrite laws? So, say if he blocked all US IPs, he'd be fine?

 

[threepenpals]

Is it legal to distribute .torrent files offline?

Copyright laws vary, so it's hard to say anything simple and comprehensive (choose one). In the US, if a work is copyrighted, you are not permitted to distribute copies of that work unless:
1. you're the copyright holder
2. you have the permission of the copyright holder
3. first sale applies (which means that you have to sell/give away the original physical copy, not another copy)
4. some fair use defense applies.

It's exceedingly unlikely that you're asking about situations where #1 or #2 apply. #3 doesn't apply because the copy you've burned to disk/drive isn't the one from your computer. #4 might apply, but you won't know for sure until you've bankrupted yourself winning a federal suit and outlasting the appeals process. For practical purposes, you're better off relying on the invisibility of sneakernets than on 'fair use'.

In short: almost certainly not.

It seemed like the original question was not about the files-of-interest (programs, music, movies, etc.) but the .torrent files that 'point' to the actual files.

 

[kurtdriver]

Torrents, as such are legal almost anywhere. You may not, in some countries, download copyrighted material within a torrent, without the consent of the copyright holder. Many torrents are hosted by the copyright holder. Linux distributions are an example.

 

[Desverger]

Could the US extradite Gary Fung for this? If so, then that would be good reason for him to stop serving US users. Aside from that, I'm not sure how this could affect him personally so long as he stays out of the US.

 

[reflex-croft]

Another one bites the dust. Its amazing how difficult its getting to find torrents for copyrighted material. Yes you can still find them, but its not all over Google now when you do a basic search on any given piece of media/software.

Er, you have heard of the number one torrent tracker site in the world, right? http://www.thepiratebay.org For the record, that's what 90% of the torrenting community uses and they aren't going anywhere. I've never heard of any torrenter using Google, alas I don't know many so that's not saying much. Something tells me that with your outlook, you don't really do much torrenting, though. Because that was a completely false statement.

My point was that in 2007, if I did a search for, say, "The Fifth Element" on Google, the first page results usually included a bunch of torrents, often before you even hit the Wikipedia entry or IMDB. It was extremely prevelant and easy, and even a casual user who had never stolen a movie in their life would see it free to download. And they may not even realize its illegal, being as its right out there in the open.

Did a search today. The first pirate link I can find is buried on page six of the search results for that movie. Few casual users are going to go that far(and this link wasn't even a torrent site, I could not find any torrents through the first ten pages, stopped looking after that). For a casual user who does not know the ins and outs of stealing movies, effectively there is no prompt or incentive to do so, its just not obvious.

Absolutely torrents still exist, TPB still exists(for the time being) and sneakernets are fairly unstoppable. But that does not change the fact that the lawsuits are having a massive effect on online piracy. The whack a mole approach may not keep piracy offline, but it has the effect of coercing the moles to be more obscure, and the more obscure they are the less visible they are to the non-technical mainstream, thus limiting their overall impact.

 

[AOletsgo]

Regarding the confusion over a Canadian in US court, look up "personal jurisdiction." I don't know the full parties of the case, but I'm willing to bet that there is a corporate entity involved. Look up International Shoe v. White and its progeny (minimum contacts test) and specific personal jurisdiction. My recollection is there is a growing body of law regarding minimum contacts through Internet transactions. Long story short: US federal courts exert jurisdiction over foreign nationals and corporations all the time, when they operate in the US. This includes online transactions in the US. US law has just as much relevance to Canadians operating in the US as Sharia has for Americans operating in Islamic states. For whether a US judgment has any effect in a foreign country, look up "enforcement of foreign judgments."

So, if a court has personal jurisdiction, it can enter a judgment. If a party is willing to violate the that judgment, then it's probably a bad idea for them ever to come back to the United States. If they accept that, there are practical limitations on enforcement (the CIA isn't going to infiltrate Canada, kidnap Fung and bring him back to the US for copyright infringement) but there is still plenty that can be done to enforce the judgment in the US.

I'm not a copyright expert so I have no idea about whether Fung could comply with the injunction by limiting US access. Maybe. You'll note the court specifically says compliance with the injunction will not matter when it comes to calculating damages - Fung is still responsible for his past actions.

 

[Nagumo]

Another one bites the dust. Its amazing how difficult its getting to find torrents for copyrighted material. Yes you can still find them, but its not all over Google now when you do a basic search on any given piece of media/software.

Er, you have heard of the number one torrent tracker site in the world, right? http://www.thepiratebay.org For the record, that's what 90% of the torrenting community uses and they aren't going anywhere. I've never heard of any torrenter using Google, alas I don't know many so that's not saying much. Something tells me that with your outlook, you don't really do much torrenting, though. Because that was a completely false statement.

My point was that in 2007, if I did a search for, say, "The Fifth Element" on Google, the first page results usually included a bunch of torrents, often before you even hit the Wikipedia entry or IMDB. It was extremely prevelant and easy, and even a casual user who had never stolen a movie in their life would see it free to download. And they may not even realize its illegal, being as its right out there in the open.

Did a search today. The first pirate link I can find is buried on page six of the search results for that movie. Few casual users are going to go that far(and this link wasn't even a torrent site, I could not find any torrents through the first ten pages, stopped looking after that). For a casual user who does not know the ins and outs of stealing movies, effectively there is no prompt or incentive to do so, its just not obvious.

Absolutely torrents still exist, TPB still exists(for the time being) and sneakernets are fairly unstoppable. But that does not change the fact that the lawsuits are having a massive effect on online piracy. The whack a mole approach may not keep piracy offline, but it has the effect of coercing the moles to be more obscure, and the more obscure they are the less visible they are to the non-technical mainstream, thus limiting their overall impact.

Keep the pipe dream alive.

Even my computer illiterate mother has heard of torrents. Add the word "torrent" to any Google search and there you are. The lawsuits have done nothing.

http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news ... passed.ars

But please, keep on dreaming.

 

[aquasub]

My point was that in 2007, if I did a search for, say, "The Fifth Element" on Google, the first page results usually included a bunch of torrents, often before you even hit the Wikipedia entry or IMDB. It was extremely prevelant and easy, and even a casual user who had never stolen a movie in their life would see it free to download. And they may not even realize its illegal, being as its right out there in the open.

Did a search today. The first pirate link I can find is buried on page six of the search results for that movie. Few casual users are going to go that far(and this link wasn't even a torrent site, I could not find any torrents through the first ten pages, stopped looking after that). For a casual user who does not know the ins and outs of stealing movies, effectively there is no prompt or incentive to do so, its just not obvious.

lol @ all this "stealing"

 

[Jackattak]

Another one bites the dust. Its amazing how difficult its getting to find torrents for copyrighted material. Yes you can still find them, but its not all over Google now when you do a basic search on any given piece of media/software.

Er, you have heard of the number one torrent tracker site in the world, right? http://www.thepiratebay.org For the record, that's what 90% of the torrenting community uses and they aren't going anywhere. I've never heard of any torrenter using Google, alas I don't know many so that's not saying much. Something tells me that with your outlook, you don't really do much torrenting, though. Because that was a completely false statement.

My point was that in 2007, if I did a search for, say, "The Fifth Element" on Google, the first page results usually included a bunch of torrents, often before you even hit the Wikipedia entry or IMDB. It was extremely prevelant and easy, and even a casual user who had never stolen a movie in their life would see it free to download. And they may not even realize its illegal, being as its right out there in the open.

Did a search today. The first pirate link I can find is buried on page six of the search results for that movie. Few casual users are going to go that far(and this link wasn't even a torrent site, I could not find any torrents through the first ten pages, stopped looking after that). For a casual user who does not know the ins and outs of stealing movies, effectively there is no prompt or incentive to do so, its just not obvious.

Absolutely torrents still exist, TPB still exists(for the time being) and sneakernets are fairly unstoppable. But that does not change the fact that the lawsuits are having a massive effect on online piracy. The whack a mole approach may not keep piracy offline, but it has the effect of coercing the moles to be more obscure, and the more obscure they are the less visible they are to the non-technical mainstream, thus limiting their overall impact.

Well, I certainly cannot refute your statements regarding Google searches. That's interesting information to hear.

I will say that I've used Google to search movie titles before and the first link I ever remember getting is IMDB, with the second being Wikipedia, but I can't really say anything regarding 2007 as I simply wasn't paying attention (I wasn't using Google for torrents, nor have I ever).

All that being said, a "casual user" or "non-technical-user", having come across a torrent site or torrent tracker in Google, wouldn't know the first damned thing to do with that and would move right along to the information they were looking for in probably 99% of these completely theoretical cases. The moment you even spoke the word "torrent" to someone like that in this context, I would imagine their head would explode all Scanners-style.

EDIT: And allow me to also publicly ridicule you for use of the RIAA/MPAA propagandist term "stealing". That's not something I normally do, and I only do it because you're better than that, typically, reflex-croft (and know better).

 

[jarvis]

My point was that in 2007, if I did a search for, say, "The Fifth Element" on Google, the first page results usually included a bunch of torrents, often before you even hit the Wikipedia entry or IMDB. It was extremely prevelant and easy, and even a casual user who had never stolen a movie in their life would see it free to download. And they may not even realize its illegal, being as its right out there in the open.

Did a search today. The first pirate link I can find is buried on page six of the search results for that movie. Few casual users are going to go that far(and this link wasn't even a torrent site, I could not find any torrents through the first ten pages, stopped looking after that). For a casual user who does not know the ins and outs of stealing movies, effectively there is no prompt or incentive to do so, its just not obvious.

Let me help you find it more efficiently using google. Enter [filetype:torrent "the fifth element" ] in your google search bar. Pages full of torrents for you (Isohunt held the 3rd and 4th position).

 

[reflex-croft]

Nagumo - Good for your grandmother. Apparantly she is more technically savvy than most of the elderly in my experience. Do you have some data demonstrating that the average person who uses the Internet has an idea what a torrent is specifically?

Jarvis - Someone would have to know that a torrent is what they are looking for in the first place. Thats my point. It was obvious a couple years ago. Its not obvious now.

Jackattack - I do consider some infringement a form of theft. We have had that debate ad naseum in these forums, and I prefer to go with the definitions assigned by those who write the actual laws and who have equated it with theft repeatedly(as well as written it into law as theft). The biggest issue here is that not all forms of infringement are necessarily theft, so it is a very non-specific thing to state that something is simply copyright infringement. I would rather get more specific, in cases like this it is theft, which can be a form of copyright infringement. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that it does not change the nature of the debate, its an argument over semantics.

Secondly, on most torrent sites there exists a prominent link to a torrent tool, such as uTorrent. Many also have explicit guides on how to install and use such tools. It is not terribly complicated, and I'm sure you are aware of that yourself.

And finally, I have no idea how you could have missed all the torrent links a couple years ago. Seriously, it was at times so ridiculous in that I had to do searches with "-torrent" in them to find legit information due to the mass proliferation of torrent sites. Now you would have to specifically search on the word torrent to find them.

 

[Nagumo]

And finally, I have no idea how you could have missed all the torrent links a couple years ago. Seriously, it was at times so ridiculous in that I had to do searches with "-torrent" in them to find legit information due to the mass proliferation of torrent sites. Now you would have to specifically search on the word torrent to find them.

I love how you continually introduce anecdotal evidence while dismissing it from anyone that isn't you (though it's clear you have reading comprehension issues since I've never mentioned my "grandmother" in this thread). On the above statement I say bullshit! Remember, the rest of us have been using search engines for at least as long as you have. And I've never seen anything you describe - not ever.

 

[Jackattak]

Jackattack - I do consider some infringement a form of theft. We have had that debate ad naseum in these forums, and I prefer to go with the definitions assigned by those who write the actual laws and who have equated it with theft repeatedly(as well as written it into law as theft). The biggest issue here is that not all forms of infringement are necessarily theft, so it is a very non-specific thing to state that something is simply copyright infringement. I would rather get more specific, in cases like this it is theft, which can be a form of copyright infringement. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that it does not change the nature of the debate, its an argument over semantics.

Not going there with you. Not today. We're at an impasse, but that's neither here nor there. I believe you know better.

Secondly, on most torrent sites there exists a prominent link to a torrent tool, such as uTorrent. Many also have explicit guides on how to install and use such tools. It is not terribly complicated, and I'm sure you are aware of that yourself.

Yes, but I really don't see grannies and other "Joe User" types getting pulled into it that way. No way in hell. Most (L)users I know don't know a torrent from an MP3 and furthermore don't care. They aren't looking to steal movies or even download them when they're searching for movies on Google. They're like you and I...they're looking for the IMDB or Wiki for the movie information.

And finally, I have no idea how you could have missed all the torrent links a couple years ago. Seriously, it was at times so ridiculous in that I had to do searches with "-torrent" in them to find legit information due to the mass proliferation of torrent sites. Now you would have to specifically search on the word torrent to find them.

Probably because I wasn't looking for torrents. An ex-coworker once put it to me like this: "Whatever it is you're looking for on the Internet, you will find it." I think that's applicable in this case (and so in many others).

 

[r3loaded]

How come this is coming under US law? I thought Gary and IsoHunt were based in Canada?

 

[reflex-croft]

And finally, I have no idea how you could have missed all the torrent links a couple years ago. Seriously, it was at times so ridiculous in that I had to do searches with "-torrent" in them to find legit information due to the mass proliferation of torrent sites. Now you would have to specifically search on the word torrent to find them. I love how you continually introduce anecdotal evidence while dismissing it from anyone that isn't you (though it's clear you have reading comprehension issues since I've never mentioned my "grandmother" in this thread). On the above statement I say bullshit! Remember, the rest of us have been using search engines for at least as long as you have. And I've never seen anything you describe - not ever.

Sorry about that, I read it as 'grandmother' but you said 'mother'. I suppose thats possible, depending on how old you are and how computer literate that is. Common, however? Yeah right. Not to pull an age thing here or anything, but I was using search back when the primary engines were Archie and Veronica. I'm sorry you somehow missed the swarm a few years ago, but it at the time had a lot of media companies threatening to sue Google.

 

[reflex-croft]

Not going there with you. Not today. We're at an impasse, but that's neither here nor there. I believe you know better.

Then stop implying that I am being disingenuous. I do believe that infringement can be theft(and in the cases in question, IS theft). I have supported that belief at length in previous threads. You can disagree with my belief if you wish, but stating that I 'know better' implies that I am being disingenuous or intentionally spreading something I know to be incorrect. That is false.

Yes, but I really don't see grannies and other "Joe User" types getting pulled into it that way. No way in hell. Most (L)users I know don't know a torrent from an MP3 and furthermore don't care. They aren't looking to steal movies or even download them when they're searching for movies on Google. They're like you and I...they're looking for the IMDB or Wiki for the movie information.

Practically every piece of malware I pulled off of my clients computers for the past five years has been due to them installing either torrent tools, gnutella, limewire, etc and then downloading movies or music and getting infected. Yes, that is purely anecdotal. But its all I've seen, and its all 'average users' since the experienced ones usually know how to avoid the fakes. Your experience may be different, and I concur that its equally valid if you have seen an opposite result since of course this is anecdotal. But from my perspective, yeah, a few years ago this was obvious and as simple as using iTunes(I actually had clients ask me why they should pay for iTunes when Limewire was free). This has been on the decline for the past few years however, at least based on the people I have interacted with.

Probably because I wasn't looking for torrents. An ex-coworker once put it to me like this: "Whatever it is you're looking for on the Internet, you will find it." I think that's applicable in this case (and so in many others).

You didn't have to be looking for torrents to find them. That is my point.

 

[Tworak]

can't wait for isohuntr

 

[deas187]

ahh i miss the good old days of being on the college dorm network and downloading gigabytes of music three nights a week with ourTunes, myTunes or rTunes.

 

[mhungry]

For those wondering how the US has jurisdiction, it's because at one point IsoHunt had servers in the states.

I can't say I feel too bad though. IsoHunt isn't just an innocent 3rd party torrent links engine. Anyone who's used the site knows that there were/are major copyrighted software marked with tags like "An IsoHunt Release.", or "TorrentBox verified", etc on them. They're always on major copyrighted works, and are clearly being used as an indicator or "good" rips, etc. There's just no way they can get around this part of it.

It was a great run. Mistakes were made though (hosting it in the US at all was #1), and now the bill is due. Of course, the users will all flee and leave the man who ran it all to pay for their sins.