Copyright lawsuit update and introducing isoHunt Lite (Beta)

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:01 am

Is the comments-based system utilizing user feedback part of the alleged terms-of-use violation? I've been following your legal battles for some time, but I am still unclear on this.

...because I had noticed in both the Lite version and with JSON calls, the individual torrent feedback is issing. (or a link to the feedback, rather)

Other than that the Lite works as well as it ought to.

Thanks for your hard work!

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:08 am

Like at least one other, I'm confused about how a US District Court can push anything on a Canadian citizen. I could see not heading across the border, just to be safe, but beyond that, I need some savvy lawyer type to riddle me this one.

Gary, you've my utmost respect. You don't give in, you don't compromise (though some might think otherwise with the lite version) and you're appreciated.

I read the entire reply to the proposed injunction, perhaps someone can point us in the direction of a copy of the injunction itself. I get the idea it would read a travesty of Free Speech.

Best of luck!

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:59 pm

I don't know how you can "honestly" think your acting on the right side of the law.What a joke.

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:04 pm

kevin28a wrote:

I don't know how you can "honestly" think your acting on the right side of the law.What a joke.

Care to elaborate or do you just make thoughtless comments in the hope that people will be provoked? Rolling Eyes

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:13 pm

kevin28a wrote:

I don't know how you can "honestly" think your acting on the right side of the law.What a joke.

Hey Mr.Side Smile

Welcome to the world
If you really think and you're sure that this is a joke please don't come back here Smile

Thank you

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:32 pm

Erelas RyAlcar wrote:

Like at least one other, I'm confused about how a US District Court can push anything on a Canadian citizen. I could see not heading across the border, just to be safe, but beyond that, I need some savvy lawyer type to riddle me this one.

Gary, you've my utmost respect. You don't give in, you don't compromise (though some might think otherwise with the lite version) and you're appreciated.

I read the entire reply to the proposed injunction, perhaps someone can point us in the direction of a copy of the injunction itself. I get the idea it would read a travesty of Free Speech.

Best of luck!

I know of a few cases where the United States has a habit of filing a criminal/civil suit against a Canadian citizen and/or corporation when they have no jurisdiction or standing, or the case is moot. The first example that comes to mind was an individual in Vancouver selling marijuana seeds online (which I think was perfectly legal to do in Vancouver -- although perhaps only to medical users). Individuals from the U.S.A. were buying them and instead of going after the individuals buying them (which from my limited understanding of business law is what you're supposed to do), they went after the seller. Not sure what happened with the case, but I do know that they use diplomatic pressure as well as other political BS to cram this sort of stuff through. So basically, it may not be legal, but, looking at the rest of what the U.S.A. has been doing lately in the international community, not much of it is legal according to international law. Anyone interested in the matter should consult an excellent book called "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky (I dare you to fact check him. I did, since at first I was somewhat skeptical. Hours later, I gave up. Everything I checked seemed to stack up).

kevin28a wrote:

I don't know how you can "honestly" think your acting on the right side of the law.What a joke.

A perfect example of the type of people I live with. The joke is more the contradicting evidence used on your side of the argument (well *ahem* when they actually put forward evidence). The irony is the cherished "Free Market" stalls with intellectual property law as it is (and essentially in general). It simply cannot stand as it currently is and needs to be updated (hopefully not in the direction its tended to follow though, which tramples on individual liberties).

The other thing to consider is that just because something might be law doesn't mean one should obey the law. ex:
(1)It was perfectly legal to own slaves but that did not mean one should own slaves.
(2)It is illegal for some individuals to be married, but that does not mean they should not be married.
etc.

Another interesting and related point is whether or not the government has authority to begin with...but...that's an argument for another day.

Feel free to counter kevin28a, or to ask me to cite evidence. I'd be more than happy to oblige.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:24 am

Wow. That r srs lite. Cool

On the serious topic, keep it up guys. I wish I could say something more useful, but I really admire everything ye're doing and wish for the best for ye.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:42 am

I'm a U.S. citizen now living in Guadalajara Mexico. How is IsoHunts status here? What I mean is, will I have to use Iso-lite too? Cuz it's just way too lite for my needs. I would really hate to see IsoHunt go so minimal. I check out MiniNova's new site (Torrentzap.com torrent downloads - Torrents at best!) from time to time, could IsoHunt move on to something similar?

R@L

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:31 pm

First things that come to my mind when I read things like this are:

Quote:

Fight the power

and

Quote:

There is something terribly wrong with this country

Although you may replace the "country" with "world"

Lately i've noticed more and more of this bs. And as far as I'm concerned, the big corporations can suck it. It seems that laws are being twisted, bent and just wrongfully implemented. This way we'll be in a cage made of laws in less then 10 years.

Points:

Exclamation

The money corporations etc. miss because of this so called "piracy" is almost nothing compared with what the movie/music industry makes. It's more like pocket change. And yet they are whining about it, although most of them have so much money they wouldn't be able to spend it all in a lifetime. Oh yes ofcourse, maybe on ridiculously expensive luxury items but they don't need stuff like that anyway.

Idea

They should pay us to watch their crap. Half of the music and films produced nowadays are crap and certainly not worth the fee for the cinema or the amount you pay for a DVD.

Question

Maybe they should just quit it all the same. I'm pretty sure that people with resources available are happy to replace them. There are enough quality films and music on the net that you aren't being charged for. Sure they may ask for a donation but that would just be fair to compensate for the time and effort they put into it.

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:36 am

As a US citizen that wishes to use the true isohunt if isolite becomes our only option, I will just be browsing on a foreign open proxy if there are no other viable options.

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:31 pm

if that site is the way isohunt is going, i'll pass. searched for a popular band and got nothing but porn. no, thanks. gonna have to do better than that.

know they're being put against the wall, but, i mean isohunt lite is useless compared to even just using google for a search engine.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:36 am

Hope someone from IsoHunt themselves reads this. Just came across an old article form originally 1985. Really good read in relation to the absurdity of copyright.

http://www.logosfoundation.org/copyleft/copyrigh.html

May contain at least some good arguments that could be used in your defense.

Wink

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:41 am

kevin28a wrote:

I don't know how you can "honestly" think your acting on the right side of the law. What a joke

Copyright law has become so overreaching it defies sensibility. Penalties are disproportionate to offenses and enforcement has created unacceptable collateral damage to civil liberties.

Is it right to make a copy of a work so that you now have two copies? In some cases, yes. That’s called fair use. Is it right to give a copy of a work to somebody who has not paid for it? In some cases, yes. That’s called lending. Every day it happens in libraries around the world.

Is it legal to make a copy, give one away and keep one for yourself? No, it’s not legal. Is it right? In some cases many people would say, yes it’s right. For example, you record a TV show and I record the same show. Your copy is accidently destroyed. I give you a copy of mine. Take a survey and you’d find most people consider that alright even though it is illegal. This is a clear example where the law begins to misalign with public opinion.

Here's another example...

jplevene wrote:

It is not illegal to make backup or copies of purchased copyright material...

In the USA under DMCA, it is not illegal to make a copy of media that you have purchased. However it is illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms such as CSS commonly found on all commercial DVDs.

In other words, I could point my camcorder at my TV screen while playing a DVD and thus legally create a backup "copy" of my DVD. That is an acceptable method. However it is illegal to remove the CSS encryption from the DVD such that I can make a perfect, digital copy of the DVD contents. It is illegal to remove the macrovision protection on the analog outputs of my DVD player so that I could directly connect my camera.

Popular programs such as Handbrake, DVDFab and deCSS are all ILLEGAL tools for circumventing encryption. Audio CD ripping software like iTunes is not illegal because CDs are not encrypted. Pointing a camera at your TV is not illegal because it works in spite of the copy protection mechanisms rather than by cracking the encryption.

That's the law, but the subtlety of this distinction does not pass the "common sense" test. From the viewpoint of the average consumer, it just doesn't make sense that inserting a CD into iTunes will automagically copy the music on to an iPod but putting a DVD into iTunes will not copy the video on to an iPod. To the average man on the street the laws and enforcement appear illogical and arbitrary.

cyberslick50 wrote:

Whether people communicate stolen material through an underground network of post-it notes or through a donation and ad supported index like yours, i dont see the difference. its still going to happen and its not the fault of those who facilitate the technology.

Running a peer-to-peer service is considered "contributory copyright infringement" so all the usual arguments about how the servers don’t actually host any illegal content and how they are "just" a search engine don’t apply. If I set up a one-page website that simply said, "You should copy a DVD," I’d probably be charged with contributory infringement.

In many cases like isohunt, the P2P service tries to claim “safe harbor”. That means isohunt is not responsible for the actions of its users anymore than an ISP or a post office. Typically the prosecution can find examples of the service provider performing some acts of content moderation. For example, maybe isohunt will remove torrents for known viruses to protect their users. Bam! No more safe harbor. The service provider just demonstrated that they can and do control the user content when it serves their interests but does not moderate content when it protects the rights of the MPAA. A true “common carrier” would not do that so the judge comes down hard.

In my opinion, the untested court case would be a P2P provider that truly operates an anonymous and unmoderated service. I mean to the extreme. Call the site, wedontknowwhatyouredoing dott comm instead of Pirate Bay or ISO Hunt. Carefully construct the hardware so that it is impossible for the operators to know the identities of the users and impossible to determine the content of the files changing hands. I don’t mean it’s difficult to determine; I mean provably, cryptographically impossible. Furthermore, run the site entirely out of RAM such that if the server was subpoenaed, all useful records would be wiped out as soon as the machine was unplugged. Maybe seal it in a glass case that physically destroys the hardware when the case is broken. Apply cryptography such that once the server goes on-line, the only thing a moderator can do to control any piece of content is to wipe the entire server.

Here is the creed. “We operate an anonymous service for free speech. We go to extreme measures to protect the anonymity of our users and their right to free speech. We do not censor anything they write or any file they post.”

When faced with a DMCA take-down notice, here is the proper response. “We are a common carrier. We do not have the ability or obligation to censor any of the content published by any of our users. Furthermore, we do not have the ability or obligation to determine the identity of any of our users. You will have to do your own investigation. Good luck.”

Of course you must be prepared to take the good with the bad. Surely the service would be used for all manner of illicit activity including piracy, spam, viruses, drug trafficking and child porn. That should come as no shock. The post office, AOL and gMail are all used for such illicit activity. No file sharing service has taken such an extreme position, but I believe it would be legally defensible. It would be an interesting legal test to determine if our right to privacy and right to free speech are more important than law enforcement. Historically (though not always) civil liberties have trumped draconian law enforcement.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:30 pm

First I'd like to thank you for this great website and your great job, and I would also like to say that I like this isoHunt/lite. But I do not understand why some of you think it is useless and if anyone can tell me please do ^_^

Keep up the good work.

Ty for reading this.

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:09 pm

spiral_fishcake wrote:

It truly is sad how willing americans will throw away freedoms for worthless things like money, or the illusion of safety.

Well said.

It is disgusting that copyright holders are, apparently, our masters....Getting to pick and choose who does/doesn't get to use an entirely neutral technology. While the arguments industry made against the sale of blank cassettes and VHS tapes were the same, this time the corporate overlords win. It seems they will be winning every dispute from here on out, actually. How quickly things change....We used to have a partial say in the way things were done - not anymore.

Bow down, America. It was okay while it lasted, but in the end you sold yourself away cheap.

We really are sheep.....Serfs.....It's not hyperbole.

Thanks for fighting the good fight, Isohunt - Deeply grateful.