With constitutional freedoms at stake, isoHunt files plead

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:37 pm

Good luck IH , reminds me of other freedom of expression issues like the "war against metal". Ever seen that video where Dee Snider took on congress? Awesome. Maybe you should call him and see if he's available to speak on your behalf Smile

. Also, Trent Reznor seems to be using free media to his advantage and I've seen interviews where he speaks to the benefits of the sharing of media. I guess the conclusion I came to when reading this was that the accusations are an absolutely ridiculous stretch and, to be honest, have no logical basis within our (Canadian) legal system. Not sure about other countries but for the most part in Canada, you don't receive punishment for conducting business in a legal fashion. I think it sounds like you have been very considerate and have gone to great efforts to PROTECT copyright laws, in the case of taking down reference to .torrent files at the request of copyright holders. We should all be concerned when it comes to our freedom. The world has come a long way and quality of life in many places on this planet has improved along with human rights and freedoms, yet we still have a long way to go and should never be satisfied. I think that companies should embrace this new direction. There is alot of media of all kinds out there and without being able to share and "try" alot of these things we're taking a big gamble on purchase of them. How many times have I purchased a product to find out that it is nothing like promised and I have unwittingly given my hard earned money to someone who doesn't deserve it. I am more than willing to pay for quality product and speaking for myself alone, the freedom to share information and files with a large community has maximized my personal "buying power". Make a good product, conduct good business, people will support you and you will not lose anything. Anyway, i digress. Good luck guys and keep your head up.

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:41 am

Fact 1: Recording Studios and Producers get MOST of the money that comes from movie and record sales, you guys need to consider they are the ones hardest hit by copyright infringement, I mean they MIGHT ACTUALLY have to sell their 7 bedroom home and buy a 4 bedroom instead, and may need to sell 14 of their cars and be stuck with a dismal 5 cars. The only reason I'd EVER feel bad for those people is because I know they don't have a f**kin clue how to live like a poor person and would probably die as a result but hey at least Darwinism corrects a major problem with humanity...

Fact 2: The really good artists, I mean the ones that actually release entire albums that are worth listening to, really don't care about illegal downloads, why you ask? Because they know they have loyal fans who will buy their stuff regardless of how free they can get it. I have purchased EVERY Metallica album at least once (some twice) I have also illegally downloaded EVERY Metallica album, I've given them the money they EARNED by being good at what they do, and they know it. Tech N9ne is another example... listen to the song "Slacker" by him and you'll know exactly what I mean, he promotes illegal downloading because he loves seeing talent get recognized, and in the words of some mobster in some movie "the only REAL tragedy in life is wasted talent."

Fact 3: Remember the 90's? Remember buying an album, getting it home, listening to 3-4 songs on the disc skipping the other 12 and wondering why the damn thing cost 35 dollars? And worse yet, no where does it say you can return it cause it was a shittastic album. That was a prime example of dishonestly, when it comes to dishonest people it doesn't matter how much lead way you give them they will always want more.

Fact 4: I used to pay for every single game, without ever knowing if it would work properly, 1/4 of them didn't because DOS was a piece of crap furthermore of the 3/4 left at least 1/3 weren't worth the money I spent, that can never happen now cause I can download a game and run it on my system, if it works I'll go buy it, if not, oh well no money spent, none wasted.

Fact 5: ISOHUNTS A FRIGGEN SEARCH ENGINE, not a server filled with illegally downloaded files.

At the end of the day the only ones who really have anything to fear from illegal downloading is super rich people (poor babies) and artists/producers/game developers that release crappy content.

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:50 am

Justly said. Well done IH, we all support you and hope for the best. Goodluck

Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:00 am

hope you guys are triumphant.. bol

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:38 pm

They could win in all the courts and it will still change nothing. The internet will simply adapt (i.e. one board goes down, a new one will open to replace it). For the first time in history we have the closest thing to true freedom of expression and it is supported internationally. This is not a medium they can control. I enjoy watching them waste millions of dollars in a fruitless endeavor.

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:51 pm

I have just had a look at a Warning on my child's dvd Cars 2. It says: (and there is a point to all this)
"This product (including it's soundtrack) is authorised for rivate use only. All other rights are reserved. Unless expressly authorised by law or in writing by the copyright proprietor, any copying, public performance or other commercial use of the product or any part of it, or any export, re-supply and/or distribution by way of trade is strictly prohibited. Unauthorised reproduction, exhibition or distribution may result in sever criminal and civil penalties. Sales and/or rental rights for this product are specified on the original packaging of this product"
Now on the original packaging it says:
"Warning, this DVD is sold on the condition it is not offered for sale or hire outside of Australia. The film (including the soundtrack) comprised in this DVD is licensed for home use only. All other rights are reserved. Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, exchanging, hiring, lending, public performance, diffusion, and or broadcast of the DVD or any part thereof is strictly prohibited"

Now I bought this DVD from a store in New Zealand, the store that sold that to me and whoever brought this DVD into NZ, are they in breach of copyright. When I buy DVD's from Amazon, is this a breach of copyright?

I don't know what diffusion is but I don't think I have seen sharing as being in breach of copyright anywhere in any of these messages.

However, once upon a time we used to have pirate radio stations that would play music between certain hours on their boats in the ocean outside that countries waters, to share music. It was illegal once, now it isn't. There was even a movie made about it!

I have heard that stores that play the radio in their shops are actually breaching copyright, so if they play a CD in a shop or supermarket or a shopping mall, according to the copyright message above, they too are in copyright. That is a lot of shops in breach.
When you go to a video store and there is a movie playing, are they in breach of copyright? It certainly would seem to be the case according to the copyright message above.
What about when music and movies are advertised to the masses on t.v and the internet, are they in breach of copyright? It does say unless with express permission so I am not sure of this one.
The point is, music and movies are played in public places all the time, 24 hours a day all around the world and no one bats an eyelid at their breach of copyright. And as mentioned, I don't think it says anything about file sharing in the "Warning/s" listed above.

And when a movie is played on the T.V and Radio, there is no message that precedes every song and every movie to say, if you record this movie or song you are in breach of copyright, yet every person has the ability to record onto a disc or onto their dvd recorder or MP3 etc in their own home every minute of every day and people do. Stores advertise in magazines, on t.v in the newspaper and on the internet, that you can record your favourite show, there is no copyright warning attached to this message. Stores also sell the blank discs to record and play where ever you want. As they are allowed to sell these products, does this mean that the movie studios and recording studios want or are o.k with you recording their productions? It certainly seems to be the case. So I am not sure if I understand why they are so opposed to file sharing, which is exactly the same thing.

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:47 am

johnno23 wrote:

arkor wrote:

Since when downloading copyrighted movies, music documents is freedom of expression?
You change the language so you think you're doing the right thing and feel good about yourself?
Just call it as it is.

you miss the point i think......back in the days before MP3 or the web we had radio as a source of music. ... when I or any of my friends bought an album that we were excited about then everyone would listen when visiting. Often several people at the same time.....Thats actually against the law as copyright stands. However there was not a policeman in every house but now with IP addresses and software that can identify any individual and where they go on the nets and even see what one has listened to then it is time to fight for some basic freedom and privacy.
Oh......film......how about the simple fact that any individual that has a tv may legally record any item broadcast on their tv's..... ... I am legally at liberty to have a video or a dvd or data on a hard drive if I take it from the TV. However if it is via the internet it s a crime ??? Jeez just the thought make me get my knickers twisted at such lunacy.
And now onto film......New movies......those that you accuse of stealing probably do not have the money to see it in a cinema and therefore are not a lost ticket sale. Many of those that see t in the cinema or the Imax often do so after a download of some rather bad quality but viewable cam recording.... I don't need to download music by popular artists and if i did I would record the video direct from MTV quite legally on my TV Hard disk recorder. So......In my humble opinion, the vast majority of what is purchased regarding media is the result of the nets or it is by the fans of the artists that choose to buy it as a sign of support.
And finally.......if you call me a thief I will call you a liar......I do not have the item but merely data and at the end of the day if I like it I buy it as I want the artist that make me smile laugh tremble and enrich my life to continue doing what it is that they do. So dammed right I want the nets to remain free. And yeah i do feel good about myself.

A resounding I CONCUR !! I've been saying this for many years, ANYTHING that can be recorded in any form of media could theoretically be considered a vessle for infringing under current copyright laws. So will they go to work on shutting down the manufacture of all media recording devices too??? Or will they start imposing laws that say anyone who LISTENS to music they didn't personally pay for in the store is guilty and gets fined/improsoned???

And it's abhorrent to me that the MPAA, RIAA et. al. get thier knickers in such a twist over 'lost revenues'... if the medium of physical cd's, vinyl, etc. is a dying entity (as they like to cry) it's probably because by the time they markup the cost for the fancy packaging at 1000% of the actual cost of the materials and decide to only pay the artists a 5-10% share of the pie, the consumer is now forced to make some really tough concessions (especially in today's economy) as to when and on what they will spend their money... and so they should be quite thankful that the freely shared word of mouth has become so viral on the internet in this way. Because I think alot of artists and movies now will see greater followings at the record store or the concert venue or the movie box office or the merchandising because people have the opportunity to hear or see ALL of what their money would buy in advance.

I download things for my own personal use, do not sell or profit in any way personally or otherwise from anything I download, but I sure do share my positive opinions to friends about artists and movies I appreciate. Since none of them also torrent, this means they will go out and buy the cd or the dvd on my recommendation. I should actually be seeking a cut of the profits for free advertising, right?? Smile

PS - nothing is really free anyway, is it? I paid for the computer, access to the ISP, the electricity that makes it all work, and the media player to listen/watch it all on... I paid quite handsomely for all these things and with lots of taxes too..

so maybe all the computer/dvd player/mp3 player/software companies/manufacturers and ISPs and utilities should pay a tiny little tax to a fund that goes to the ARTISTS to say THANK YOU and keep it up!! Or maybe those multi-billion dollar media moguels need to give back a chunk of their change instead of robbing the music makers blind in piss poor record deals. Hey, if you make a movie on a budget of $30Million and gross $600M but you paid the actors like $1M or less... who is the theif in all of this?? PUH-LEEZ......

Oh, and isn't everything on youtube eventually too???? Very Happy

Thanks to Isohunt for fighting the good fight and keeping our internet civil rights in check.

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:00 am

heacock wrote:

I enjoy watching them waste millions of dollars in a fruitless endeavor.

isn't it sad though, rather than feeding some lawyers such a nice chunk of change for this argument, they could be paying the artists and others in their industry that produce/promote their medum, not to mention how they are clogging the court resources which i'm sure could be put to much better use, like prosecuting pediphiles and murderers and the like... in the end it's just the rich trying to get richer. I wish the courts would tell them to piss off in the first place, but then again that would be argued as an infringement of THEIR civil rights.

it comes down to what society finds acceptable. at the end of the day, there are far more in the world willing to support the use of file sharing than to agree with people like the MPAA. so you're right, they are spinning their wheels in the mud on a futile effort and simply wasting time and resources in the process - theirs and ours.

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:26 am

I decided to check if playing the radio or recorded music publicly if it is a breach of copyright and it is. Copied:
Anyone playing recorded music in public e.g. shops, clubs, bars, hotels, restaurants, leisure centres, sports venues, function and conference facilities, retail malls - any where that recorded music is played in public. If your phone system includes a Music On-Hold facility, this also needs to be licensed.
And
The broadcasters licensed are commercial and non-commercial radio and television companies. Licences are issued for thousands of organisations for public performance.

A long list was supplied but I didn't include, I do wander if the license covers organisations such as dance studios who then record their performances and routines and place on the internet?
And I also saw that shops have been sent notices re breach of copyright.

Though there wasn't anything specific on file downloading and file sharing, but as I mentioned earlier, we use play music to the masses, music that was not played on the legal radio stations, from ships in international waters & a movie was made about it.
Today I said to my daughter that a song that was playing at the end of a movie was really good, but I have never heard it before and am wandering what it is, I will have to search the internet to find it, as it is not played on the radio.

I also found this interesting piece with compelling arguments for both sides, I've copied quite a bit of the final paper of an inquiry in NZ, 14 May 2010
Members - Commerce Select Committee
Inquiry into copyright infringement is hurting New Zealand music –
How can artists use new media to get their music sold rather than
stolen

There is still heated controversy over the scale of the sales displacement effect of illegal downloads on physical sales, as some say the drop is due to an increase in digital sales.
Wholesale trade statistics collected by RIANZ show that legal digital sales only make up nine percent of wholesale sales. The drop in CD sales in recent years has only partly been due to the move to purchase digital formats.
Any discussion of the subject on the internet produces pointed exchanges from often well informed participants. Estimates of loss all rely on the assumption that illicit copies would have been paid for. Some research supports the idea that “piracy” results in a net increase in sales for most artists (Blackburn 2004) and there is also evidence that giving away electronic copies for free leads to increased sales of physical copies of media (O’Reilly 2007).
A number of factors other than illegal downloading may also have contributed to the decline in physical sales. Consumers have other options to spend their entertainment budget on and this has been helped, some claim, by uninspiring CD/DVD releases over the last few years.
CD sales may also have been artificially high in the period prior to the burgeoning of digital downloads due to consumers replacing vinyl record collections with CDs. Also, bands have changed their marketing approach. Instead of going on tour to promote CDs, now bands release free downloads of their music to promote their tours and the merchandising that goes with it.
The rise of the internet retailers has also played a part in the demise of high profile CD retailers over the past few years. In particular, iTunes and Amazon.com have changed the buying behaviour of many consumers, while CD Baby, the largest online independent distributor of music, has over 275,000 CDs available for purchase.
The costs of illegal downloading include losses to the industry of sales foregone, possible reduction in product offerings as revenues reduce which leads to the reduction of choice for consumers, wider transmission of viruses, security breaches, and possible trade impacts. The benefits are that consumers receive free, but illicit goods.
Empirical studies from outside New Zealand produce loss estimates ranging between zero and twenty percent of total revenue for music and between two and nine percent of total revenue for film and television. The figures from these overseas studies are very sensitive to the methodology used and the country and industry examined. It must be kept in mind, therefore, that the scale of problem may be lower than some in the industry have claimed (New Zealand Treasury, 2010). It is also possible the problem may be worse than previously claimed.

How can artists use new media to sell their music?
The short answer is this: we don’t know.
The demand for music remains, there is no new product that substitutes for recorded music, what has shifted is the way in which people are accessing this music. Some of these ways are legal, others are not. While entrepreneurs are experimenting with a variety of new business models that are trying to find ways of profiting from the sale of music through new media, no business model has firmly established itself as a long-term success.

Some of the new media strategies being tried include:
? search optimisation – categorising, labelling and tagging music so that it is easy to find by artist, genre, word of mouth or other affinity
? subscription or advertising supported streaming services for music on demand
? downloads protected by encryption
? try before you buy samples
? using new media social networks, such as MySpace and Facebook, to promote music
? giving the music away to boost demand for live performance, merchandising and/or limited edition or high quality recordings – for example, in 2008 Nine Inch Nails digitally released the album The Slip for free, but later released a limited edition CD with a print run of 250,000
? aggregation of retailers into a few online superstores (such as Amazon)
? donationware – for example, in October 2007, Radiohead released the album In Rainbows for electronic download, and customers could choose to pay whatever they wanted, including nothing
? online distributors for independent artists, such as CD Baby.

What is the appropriate role for government in the music market?

Given the lack of reliable evidence for copyright infringement causing significant hurt to sales of New Zealand music, it is important that any policy action taken to address the problem should not unnecessarily impinge on legitimate consumer access to material on the web and
in particular, should not unnecessarily inhibit business innovation in the digital environment.
Proposals for regulation should be treated cautiously. Government should seek to balance the rights of the artist to control copying and distribution of their music, with the ability of the consumer to access and enjoy that music. Too little protection for the intellectual property and copyrights of artists, and they will be unable to profit from their work. Too much protection and the public will be unable to benefit from the advances in digital technology.

Report to the House
The Committee is required to report its findings on this inquiry to the House. The purpose of your report is first to inform the House and stimulate debate. In doing so your report should reflect both the oral and written evidence the Committee received, the issues the Committee
considered in-depth, and the views of the members. From these the Committee should develop conclusions and recommendations to the Government.

Members may wish to ask:
? If the proposed changes to s92 of the Copyright Act fail to reduce the decline in music
sales, would you support their repeal?
? How much loss of revenue to artists can be attributed to piracy, and how much to the accounting practices of music labels?
? Does the “long tail” concept offer a niche market solution for New Zealand music?
? How should Government balance the rights of artists and consumers?
? What single innovation do you think is mostly likely to increase revenue to artists?
? Given the lack of a clear direction for the future of the music market in new media, is there any case for government intervention at this time?
? Would it be simpler to assume all internet users download music that infringes copyright, and build a fee for this into their internet subscription payment that could then be redistributed to artists?
? Should the Government change how New Zealand on Air funds the development of New Zealand music?
? Given that New Zealand permits format-shifting of music, is it fair to say that encrypting music to limit how it can be played will not boost artist revenue?
? How can New Zealand artists use new media to promote their work to a global audience?

It is good report, maybe IsoHunt can use some of it for their case?

And a final comment from me; How many artists have been discovered because of the internet, who ordinarily if they had sent a demo into a major recording studio would have been overlooked or declined.

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:04 am

Isohunt and couple other websites had been banned in india during the last 2 months. However based on a recent court order passed after isp consortium filed a complaint, the links have been enabled again. More details in this link
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18551471

IH wrote:

Freedom of expression on the Internet is under attack. From SOPA in the US, ACTA internationally, and C-11 in Canada, the same theme is apparent on the agenda of copyright industry groups: instead of dealing with actual copyright violators, they want to shut down technologies and internet services that they say will be used by violators. It’s the same alarmist approach that goes back to the VCR and the radio. As the Internet emerges as the de-facto medium of communication, sharing and expression, the control over distribution by copyright industries is threatened. In turn, the constitutional freedom of expression of Canadians and all participants on the Internet is threatened.

Since SOPA, a new term has been coined on this age: the War on Piracy. What it really is is a War on the Internet. In our latest response to CRIA filed in Court, we ask the Supreme Court of BC to adjudicate this crucial issue of balance between the constitutional rights of people on the Internet to communicate, share and search, versus the rights of copyright industries to limit such rights in the corporate interest of protecting and extending copyright. isoHunt urges the court to examine this issue carefully, for the sake of innovations on the Internet, free exchange of culture, and fundamental constitutional freedoms.

Here is an electronic copy of our pleading, filed at the Supreme Court of BC, Canada. The Attorney General has been put on notice of constitutional issues raised.

News:
- http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-threaten-the-open-internet-isohunt-tells-court-120229/
- http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/t8aef/in_its_case_against_26_major_record_labels_at_bc/ (May 5, 2012) with our comment

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:02 am

Well said Johnno23 . Your comments are one the button.

Since the dawn of humanity we have shared thoughts and ideas. It's just lucky there were no money hungry fascist's (that might be a bit strong) around back then.
As long as I can remember people have shared their cultural likes and dislikes.
Off the point, can I get a refund for the crap I get sucked into spending my hard earned dollar on. By this I mean movie trailers that use all the good parts of a movie and when you finally watch it, it is garbage. Probably not.

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:15 am

And here are the bulleted recommendations - I have included the link rather than copying the entire document this time. It's not long, only 4 pages.

Inquiry into whether copyright infringement is hurting New Zealand music; how can artists use new media to get their music sold rather than stolen

Recommendation

The Commerce Committee makes the following recommendations to the Government:
? that it acknowledge that further legislation is unlikely to be effective in preventing the dissemination of music through the internet and other forms of new media
? that it seek, instead, to encourage the music industry to develop new business models to balance the interests of artists with those of consumers
? that it contribute to increasing public education about the risks inherent in peer-topeer file sharing, and the benefits to be gained for both artists and consumers from respecting copyright and accessing music legitimately
? that it investigate measures to make it easier for artists to enforce their rights, at a lower cost that is more proportionate to the level of harm suffered.

http://www.myd.govt.nz/have-your-say/youth-parliament/yp-10-cm-report.pdf

Another excerpt I've copied from it:

Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) suggests that a drop in CD sales over recent years can be only partly explained by the trend toward purchasing digital formats—suggesting that the balance is due to illegal downloads—and that there may be almost 5,000 users potentially infringing copyright per day.
Other sources, however, suggest that claims of economic loss by the recording industry are questionable, or that losses may be due to factors other than piracy, such as competition from other forms of entertainment. We note in this context, however, that the Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) has continued to announce record profits over recent years.
We note also that a 2009 study by the Government of the Netherlands into peer-to-peer file sharing found that illegal downloaders are also the largest consumers of music, and are more likely to go to concerts and seek out lesser-known bands. This suggests to us that there are opportunities in taking an alternative approach, rather than trying to tighten New Zealand’s copyright legislation.

I also had a look at the definition of index, which is effectively what IH is & from the on-line dictionary got this:

in·dex (ndks)
n. pl. in·dex·es or in·di·ces (-d-sz)
1. Something that serves to guide, point out, or otherwise facilitate reference, especially:
a. An alphabetized list of names, places, and subjects treated in a printed work, giving the page or pages on which each item is mentioned.
b. A thumb index.
c. A table, file, or catalog.
d. Computer Science A list of keywords associated with a record or document, used especially as an aid in searching for information.

In an earlier post a reference was given re the O'Dwyer case, I found the article on this and have included the link here. I have to say that maybe IH actually has a chance of winning this..
It's a good article, very similar set of circumstances, the person had an indexing site so no actual copyright protected material which is not considered illegal in Europe. But Canada is based on Westminster Law, so wouldn't it be considered not illegal there too?
There is a piece in the article, it is a bit arrogant on the US' part and says: The U.S. Department of Justice argues the U.S. has world-wide jurisdiction over all .com and .net domain registrations.
In July, ICE’s “assistant deputy director told the Guardian that ICE would now actively pursue websites similar to TVShack even if their only connection to the US was a website address ending in .com or .net.”

http://mfeldstein.com/u-s-claims-global-jurisdiction-of-net-and-com-web-sites-is-edu-next/

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:32 pm

I just want to give my thanks to Isohunt for continuing to fight for the freedom of the internet. I'm not comprehensively informed on the subject but generally see the importance of resisting the status quo and working with those in the status quo to create a better solution for all parties involved.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:27 am

arkor wrote:

Since when downloading copyrighted movies, music documents is freedom of expression?
You change the language so you think you're doing the right thing and feel good about yourself?
Just call it as it is.

Missing the point.
Personally I see the internet the equivalent of a modern day library. Where culture and knowledge should be free for whomever seeks it. Only when it comes to a select few who's motives are for finanicial gain, i.e. in re-selling artists, producers work, then yes these people should be the ones targeted. Keep up the good work IH. Knowledge hungry internet user

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:27 am

There's more data here than the CIA can accumulate.