On legal spectacles

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:45 pm

ggggg700 wrote:

If you own something, let say you bought a dvd, and a friend of yours would like to borrow it, so you share it with him, you are not charging him any money, so you are not profiting. The copyright holder of that dvd already profited from you buying it. Now that you own a copy, you can lend it to anyone else who you wish to see it. What's so different from sharing it on the internet?

That's a Stupid thing duh its not the same. and its totally different.
If You hand someone your DVD to Barrow over the night that's not a problem of course. But Making a Copy of that DVD to GIVE Them. Then It's Wrong of Course. That is a loose of money to the makers of that DVD. on a Net Scale a copy in a since every second that someone hits 100% on the download. Its nothing like letting one person borrowing then returning it.

Sorry but your a dumb ass for even if its different. You wouldn't want a DVD Or Software you made you intended to sale be bought then re uploaded for public download against your wishes. You loose income flow and you would want a system that help protect you against. It is a Crime.

As For IsoHunt case. any copyright claims i think would be irrelevant to attack IsoHunt on any copyright claims. Because Its all Torrent Handled. All they store is the Torrent Files and they don't hold any of the real illegal content. Its all P2P directly from one's or more System to another. All IsoHunt is really is a listing. I think if anyone should be sued is the original poster of the Torrent File. But then there user rights to privacy.

On my Site (or people i let have a site on my server) any i have it clear about file hosting and Mirroring. i consider Torrents like Mirroring to another site which contains files that maybe illegal. and i put down that if im contacted by companies the owner of content or law enforcement. that the user that posted the file or mirror to it privacy on my server is void and i release any information on that user, Such as IPs, Email address and lock the content from view and hold onto it u. because the what Ive called "The Code" Clearly Stated Not to post any illegal or Copy protected Content Void there Rights on my server. As Long as Site Owners and there users on my Server I have no problem.

I had A Kind of case where one of my clients that i granted a site too put a copy of "Windows XP" Right on my server. I flatten his site because he went against The Code. He Contacted me with immature words and claimed there was nothing wrong with it that there was no Serial Key and that he was letting a friend get a copy because his was broke and he still had his key. This made no change in what i decided. Right there on the Disc no Key or Not it states "Do Not make Illegal Copies Of Disc" There in fine print. This Person in many cases should be thankful i didn't report him to Microsoft to make a case against him. He Easly could of faced a fee of court fees and normal fees when breaking a copyright law.

Needless to say this person still failed to get where i was getting at. So to this day his Site been purged along with the ISO of Windows XP. If his friend needed a replacement disc he could of got one cheap or for pretty much nothing from Microsoft with a valid Product key. They Decided to take the wrong path. I think i was kind just taking away the site i let him have for free.

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:37 pm

I don't understand something. And I think it might be important in the scheme of things. First let me say that I am 51 years old. This puts what I'm about to say in the frame of things.

I remember when the cassette tape (audio) was the new hot thing. If people wanted to save their albums they recorded the music onto cassettes and carried them with them either in their cars or on portable cassette players. Nobody said that this was infringing on any copyright. We used to record music off the radio. Nobody came to our doors and demanded that we cease and desist from doing so. We shared our music with our friends and family. There were no lawyers taking us to court over this practice. Heck I still have tapes that my friends made me over 20 years ago that are still playable. No one said that Maxell or any other company had to stop making and distributing blank cassette tapes.

Then came VCR's. NOT VCP's - VCR's - SONY Betamax (fail!) and VHS. We used to tape programs off the tv - when cable started and HBO was the big thing everyone I know used to tape movies to watch either "later" or "for their collection". For all I know people still do - there are still blank VHS tapes in the stores for sale. Again, no one said you can't tape a TV program or movie. And again I still have hundreds of movies that I taped either off the TV or copied from another tape.

Now we have the internet. And CD's and DVD's and Blu-Ray - and all of a sudden we can't share music with our friends, or copy a tv show, or do any other damn thing without worrying that someone is going to knock on our door and take our computer away because we want to have entertainment in our lives.

Once something has been sold it has been sold. If the person who bought it wants to share it there should be no law against it.

If for all these years all of the things that I mentioned were legal - why are they trying to make it illegal? Could someone please explain this to me? Use small words LOL!

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:12 pm

kdmp wrote:

Something else...now while ISOHunt has the DMCA Notice on this site, that definately shows a weakness on the end of the copyright holders and the legislators or the United States. A simple question needs to be asked of them in court.

Quote:

Currently, how many copyrighted items are registered in just the United States?

Simple answer...there are too many to count. Next question...

Quote:

How is one organization supposed to filter out that many items?

Finish this off with...

Quote:

Due to the failure of the legislation and the copyright holders, they have forced us (isohunt) into a position that was set to fail right from the start. Failure to protect their own works by failing to provide a means of 'digital' reference. A digital reference that would filter out copyrighted materials. A point of reference that would work with all search engines. By failing to provide something that has been recommended for years, the copyright holders are to blame for their work being shared.

There is a database that holds copyrighted works maintained by the government. Now why is there no API that search engines can use to filter out the copyrighted material? It's definitely not ISOHunt's responsibility to provide tools to filter out the millions/billions of items that are contained in the copyright database. If you want to prevent something, you have to create something to stop it. The MPAA and music industry have failed to do this.

Great point, but not quite right. There's no central database in any county I know of that holds all copyrighted works for that country. US used to have compulsory copyright registration, but that's more than 100 years ago since they stopped and now any and all writing, video, audio, whatever produced by you and me are copyrighted by default, unless there are contracts for assigning copyright of your work to someone else (musicians assigning their copyright to music to labels in exchange for promotion and recording for example).

This is the biggest problem, that we don't have a authoritative database one can lookup for copyright status of files and content. I know Linux authorized distribution using copyleft licenses, as do anyone using Creative Commons license, but how would one know for the millions of other files being shared online?

If we can solve this problem of identification, we wouldn't have our lawsuits against both MPAA and CRIA. Our legal issues boils down to effectively a blaming contest for who is responsible for identifying links to files that is allegedly copyright infringing. They would say more things like we promote/induce/authorize infringements but we know that's quite contrary to what I've doing.

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:15 pm

i don't know if anyone mentioned this yet but it is simple. u are a search engine. u do not actually have any of these files. u are just like google. i can find almost the same files on google as here. if they want to shut u down, they have to shut down google and all the other search engines too. that is not going to happen. are they going after google? if not, why not?

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:04 am

I'm getting scare everytime I hear this kind of news

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:16 pm

hello,

I did actually registered just to post this:

IsoHunt cannot be held responsible for what users exchange between each other. IsoHunt provides a means . It is just as insane as making the people that make the empty CDs or DVDs responsible of what buyers burn to them.

I hope this helps.
All the best,
Mrs KIT

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:54 am

farcus wrote:

i don't know if anyone mentioned this yet but it is simple. u are a search engine. u do not actually have any of these files. u are just like google. i can find almost the same files on google as here. if they want to shut u down, they have to shut down google and all the other search engines too. that is not going to happen. are they going after google? if not, why not?

google has money not to say isohunt doesnt but they dont on the scale that google does. also i think google links to the sites that link to *whatever*

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:53 pm

bcheath wrote:

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:03 am

The following is the AT&T spin on this issue. As an AT&T customer, I am extremely disappointed in their stance and will be letting them no, in no uncertain terms that, I disagree with this, as it appears to be an intrusion on my right to privacy. I mean, how can they be so industrious with this, and be totally hamstrung from stopping the "Nigerian Scam Society" from sending me a thousand bullshit emails every week about some lottery or, some ATM payment. They know from the numerous sites that report these scams. Hell, that is how I know! This is another example of those in power manipulate we who are not. It's really bullshit!

NEW YORK - AT&T Inc., the nation's largest Internet service provider, will start sending warnings to its subscribers when music labels and movie studios allege that they are trafficking in pirated material, according to an executive.

The phone company thus joins other major ISPs that either go beyond legal requirements or interpret their duties under the law to mean that they have to forward such notices.

Jim Cicconi, AT&T's top executive in Washington, confirmed this week that the company is looking to expand a trial program it ran late last year with movie studios. It is currently testing a system with the Recording Industry Association of America and will expand the program with other rights organizations.

Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. already forward such notices, but the approaches differ, and the legal situation is muddled.

Copyright holders like movie studios can, in many cases, identify Internet users who download or provide pirated material by their numerical Internet address, but cannot match it up with a subscriber name without the cooperation of the Internet service provider.

ISPs have previously identified their customers to copyright holders who bring court orders. The copyright holders and their representatives, like the RIAA, have then been able to sue the customers.

But that strategy had been widely criticized, and the RIAA said late last year it was abandoning its policy of filing lawsuits, opting instead to work with ISPs to cut abusers' access if they ignore repeated warnings. At the time, the RIAA said it agreed with several leading ISPs, without naming which ones, to notify alleged illegal file-sharers and cut off service if they failed to stop.

Cicconi said AT&T's program was not the result of a deal with the RIAA, and the music industry organization was not part of the first trials the company conducted of the notification system last year.

Under the new system at AT&T, copyright holders would send a notice to the ISP that a certain numerical Internet address is associated with piracy. The ISP would then automatically forward the notice to the customer via e-mail, without telling the copyright holder who the customer is, Cicconi said.

AT&T and other participating ISPs are doing more for copyright owners than they are legally obliged to, according to Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. However, they do have an obligation to have a policy in place to kick off repeat offenders, he said.

AT&T will only forward the notice and won't threaten its customers with suspension of service or any other sanction, Cicconi said. If copyright holders want to go further, it's up to them to bring court orders, he said.

"It seems to engender a good response from customers, and we've seen a fairly dramatic drop-off in file-sharing activity once people receive a notice, so we feel this works," Cicconi said.

Cox, the fifth-largest ISP in the country with about 4 million Internet customers, forwards thousands of notices per month and has cut off a few repeat offenders, spokesman David Grabert said. It interprets the law as requiring it to forward the notices.

There's confusion about the legal obligations of ISPs, von Lohmann said, because "nobody on either side has had the nerve to go to court over it, probably because the stakes are so high, neither side wants to gamble on what the ultimate answer might be."

In Ireland, the association representing RIAA members sued a local ISP, forcing it to disconnect a subscriber after three recorded copyright violations.

Internet lawyers and consumer advocates have pointed out that many reports of violations from copyright holders are inaccurate. Cox and AT&T said that in many cases, the notices have gone out to parents who didn't know that their children were pirating copyrighted material. In other cases, AT&T's Cicconi said, customers hadn't secured their wireless routers, and someone else near had been using them for downloading, so AT&T has helped customers secure their routers.

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:41 pm

precise annotation

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:22 pm

amen. good luck isohunt!

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:55 am

Check this out!

Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar Seat Now at:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/625306035

Anti-piracy strategies are becoming increasingly important to software vendors looking for additional ways of maximizing their revenues. As vendors begin exploring the benefits of automatic software auditing, they also need to understand the interplay with EU privacy and data protection regulations to maximize the effectiveness of their efforts.

Join us for a free webinar on Thursday, April 16, and hear attorney Alexander Duisberg, partner at international commercial law firm Bird & Bird and head of the German IT Commercial and Outsourcing practice group, discuss the balance between EU Privacy Regulations and automatic software auditing.

V.i. Labs' Victor DeMarines shows you how software vendors are taking a new approach to software piracy that creates actionable leads for their legal or sales teams and demonstrates how CodeArmor® Intelligence can tell you exactly who is using your software illegally.

Attend this webcast and you will learn:

Legal issues around automatic software auditing in the EU
The types of data you can collect and those you must avoid collecting (and which geographies are more sensitive than others)
How to manage privacy issues in a cross-border environment
How software vendors have evolved their anti-piracy approaches to recover revenue

Who should attend:

General counsel
Compliance officers
Directors or VPs of Software Development/Engineering, Product Management, and Software Licensing
CTOs
About the presenters:

Dr. Alexander Duisberg
Partner, Bird & Bird
Alexander Duisberg heads the German IT Commercial and Outsourcing Practice Group of Bird & Bird. He advises suppliers and users of technology and communications products and services, as well as clients from the semi-conductor industry.

Alexander has expertise and practical experience of advising on a wide range of managed services and outsourcing arrangements in the technology and communications sectors. He also covers the full range of contentious and non-contentious matters of IT law, e- and m-commerce, data protection law, including major projects, complex technology transfer agreements, convergence of IT and telecommunication services as well as assisting in technology-related mergers and acquisitions, venture capital and private equity transactions.

His specific expertise in the field of data protection law covers, inter alia, advising on international compliance programs, international data transfers, global HR systems, international coordination on data leakages, electronic consent declarations in the context of e- and m-commerce offerings, and the transfer of personal data in the context of corporate acquisition. Dr. Alexander Duisberg, Bird & Bird

Victor DeMarines
VP, Products

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:13 am

"Trends to track in 2009 include the growth of social networking sites in China, with over 55 million users, and their cross-pollination with games,"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:58 am

I hope isohunt wins this one and i think they will. Im running windows vista ultimte which was suposed to be good for playing dvds. Cant even play my store baught dvds cause of some kinde of coppy protection poping up on my puter, and i dont hav a dvd player just my PC. But i was able to download my movies and play them, thanks to isohunt. Sorry if my typing is crap.

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:42 pm

I know donations are paramount, financial legal costs are astronomical.
Apart from donations can we do anything else to support u guys?