Copyright lawsuit update and introducing isoHunt Lite (Beta)

Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:55 am

ashfallen0 wrote:

I'm a servicemember serving abroad, and my internet is piped from where we are to a connecting point in the UK; and now we're only receiving the /lite site now.

Has the /lite been pushed out now to the UK and beyond? it was nice not having to use the /lite once I left the US. It would be a moderate /fail if the first program/website/service I had to concider me in the US would be the blanket /fail imposed on IH.

Hulu, Netflix, Youtube and Speedtest.net still concider me "outside the US"

I would appreciate being enlightened on this development.

unfortunately your IP is a US one.. i wont post it but the geographical location is an armed forces one

Quote:

Country: United States
State/Region: Armed Forces Europe, Middle East, & Canada
City: Apo

it points on the map somewhere off of the African coast

Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:23 am

That's slightly higher than a moderate /fail.

So, the court injunction against IH has roped in USARFOR addresses, killing our ability to use IH like the rest of the world, yet I can't get Netflix and Hulu to see my AS a US customer.

Anyone know of a good VPN service besides hotspot? (*hulu has killed hotspot IP's, and it's metered too slow to make using netflix worthwhile)

Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:06 pm

you can VPN to the netherlands and the US through torrentfreedom.com

Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:28 am

spiral_fishcake wrote:

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

I very much agree, great input. Smile

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:29 pm

@ashfallen0 You can still google the file you need, typing " filetype:torrent" at the end of the search string. The first link in the results page will frequently be the same isoHunt torrent page you'd get from a non-US location.

This was one of the isoHunt arguments during the trial, that it did nothing more than what Google already did.

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:00 pm

Even if Google itself stop DISCLOSE on torrent links, people find another way to share your files.

As companies continue to treat their customers as fools charging absurd prices for their products or trying to dominate them by requiring them what to use, will be treated in a reciprocal manner: as fools.
And not:
I do not renounce my right of expression.

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:17 am

it's not like IH is selling the stuff or even charging for use
(thanks by the way)

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:08 pm

After reading through the news posts on the legal situation, I think that there is a misconception going around. Copyright law isn't something that is exclusive to the United States. Copyright law is an international legal concept.

Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:53 pm

neostyles wrote:

After reading through the news posts on the legal situation, I think that there is a misconception going around. Copyright law isn't something that is exclusive to the United States. Copyright law is an international legal concept.

But you might be breaking a copyright in one country but not in another..

Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:14 pm

i was in a court house when i kid age 10 was being sued for downloading movies and music and he got away with it after asking 5 questions. the kid took the stand and he asked the judge if he can address the court first and ask 5 questions of his own first and he woudl like all people in the court room to answer by raising there hands. the judge agried. then the kid asked his questions and here they are.

question (1) Who here has owned a Tape deck?
everone in the court room raised there hand

question (2) Who here has used the tape deck to record a song that was not there own?
all but 3 raised there hand

question (3) Who here has or does own a VCR,PVR,TiVo, or someting to record live TV.
everyones had went into the air

question (4) Who here has used one of those devices to record the live TV?
everyone hand went back into the the air

the kid just smiled with this

my final question I will ask
question (5) Who here has payed or gotten written permission for the orignal producrs to record such prodraming or music?

not one hand went up and the kid looked at the judge well you are accusing me of copyright infridgment were you are All guilty including you your honner and the rest of the court room. Everything I have downloaded has been freely put on radio or been on Tv or on DVD and with most stuff on DVD it has been TV with 24 hours of it being reliced I never download anything that has just been released on dvd that day i wait a week the music i have made shure it has been on tv or been on the radio first. since it has been publicy chaired I belive i have the right to down load this content if you disagrie with me then your honner you better arest yourself and fine yourself and put you into jail befoe you even think of doing it to me. becaue in the court of law you all admitted to breaking the same law im being accused of. I will admit i have gotten something by accedent when downloading something and finding out it was something else and when i have found out i have posted a comment about it right away that this is the wrong movie or its still in theator and if i do get it I burn it right away and get it off my system. but they are not watched or anythign else. form stuff i read online and i know i could be mistaken that when you burn anything to disc you are paying for a copyright.

all charges were droped on the kid all his stuff was returned and he is still doing it. so i do not see what the problem is with downloading anything that is on tv or on dvd but if its still in the theator then it shoudl never be posted.

I will not explain more about the case or where it happened i am oblagated to keep the identy of the child becaue of his age.

Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:07 pm

there is a thing called TOR and it lets you hop onto a relay network.
when you do this you can webbrowse anonymously, and when you direct applications like utorrent through the proxy net it looks like your coming from somewhere in europe etc.
this is why page redirection doesnt work for people who know how to use TOR.
to the point, you dont have to settle for iso lite bcz you can get a version of isohunt from a page in another country that is not subject to U.S. court rulings so find TOR download it and learn how to use it to full advantage.
PROPS to: ALL THE UPLOADERS!

Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:00 am

LORD! GARTH! wrote:

there is a thing called TOR and it lets you hop onto a relay network.
when you do this you can webbrowse anonymously, and when you direct applications like utorrent through the proxy net it looks like your coming from somewhere in europe etc.
this is why page redirection doesnt work for people who know how to use TOR.
to the point, you dont have to settle for iso lite bcz you can get a version of isohunt from a page in another country that is not subject to U.S. court rulings so find TOR download it and learn how to use it to full advantage.
PROPS to: ALL THE UPLOADERS!

Thanx For The Tip Abt TOR Garth, I Will Take A Serious Look At It.

R@L

Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:14 am

Film giants lose illegal downloads appeal
18:09 AEST Thu Feb 24 2011

Film industry giants have lost a Federal Court appeal in a legal battle against internet service provider (ISP) iiNet over illegal downloads.
The consortium of movie studios, headed by Roadshow Films, was appealing a 2010 landmark court judgment that found iiNet could not be held responsible for its users illegally downloading movies and television shows.
In the initial case, the studios had tried to prove iiNet not only failed to take steps to stop illegal file-sharing by customers but breached copyright itself by storing the data and transmitting it through its system.
On Thursday, the full court of the Federal Court, in a 2-1 majority decision, dismissed the appeal.
"While the evidence supports a conclusion that iiNet demonstrated a dismissive ... attitude to the complaints of infringement by the use of its services, its conduct did not amount to authorisation of the primary acts of infringement on the part of iiNet users," Justice Emmett said in his findings.

Outside court, iiNet chief executive Michael Malone said he was "very relieved".

"We don't believe we ever authorised or did anything to encourage customers to breach copyright," he told reporters.

He said the case had cost the company $6.5 million yet "all this legal action hasn't stopped one customer from (illegally) downloading anywhere in Australia".

Mr Malone urged the film industry to "address the growing demand for studio content to be delivered in a timely and cost-effective manner to consumers," saying iiNet was eager to make such material available legitimately.

"And let's find a better way to be able to police those who don't do the right thing," he said.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), an anti-piracy agency speaking on behalf of the consortium, said iiNet had admitted to tens of thousands of copyright infringements.

"It cannot be right that, in effect, the ISP who has the power to prevent copyright infringement online, and admitted they were taking place, does not share the responsibility to stop them," executive director Neil Gane told reporters outside court.

"Copyright infringement now goes on unabated on the internet ...

"We will be taking our time now to examine the judgment in detail and consider all of our options."

Justice John Nicholas said that while iiNet accepted it had general knowledge of copyright infringement committed by its users, "it would be difficult for the company to act on knowledge of such a general kind with a view to preventing or avoiding copyright infringements by people using its network".

"This is because the respondent would have no means of knowing who had used its facilities to infringe copyright unless that knowledge was provided to it by third parties," he said.

He rejected a submission by Roadshow that notices issued by AFACT provided iiNet with all the required information for the issuing of warnings to its subscribers and, if appropriate, terminate or suspend the accounts used to infringe copyright.

He continued that iiNet had "hundreds of thousands of customers and that each day it receives hundreds of notices issued by or on behalf of copyright owners".

Justice Emmett set down a directions hearing for costs on March 11.

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:20 pm

If the worst ever does happen, your final movie you make available should be "1984", as it would sum up the attitudes of the powers that closed you down.
The movie, and especially the record, industry has been so greedy for so long, they deserve everything they get..heck over half the world is starving and some silly little ex governor b-movie actor can demand $10 million just to discuss a movie...it's perverse.

Look at Avatar, the first film ever to top the $2billion mark...as at least one person commented, they can afford to have the film pirated...if the film was truly worth watching in the cinema to start with, like this one was, people would go and pay good money, as they did with this one.
So is shows that the only people that need to fear the likes of torrents are the people that produce shit films in the first place :)