4 ms·

>they do not store any data that could infringe upon copyrights, they only store links to that data This argument has largely not held up in court. See Isohunt

by ikeboy 10y ago

>they do not store any data that could infringe upon copyrights, they only store links to that data This argument has largely not held up in court. See Isohunt. I've asked elsewhere in this thread for a single example of this argument (for a torrent site) working in US courts, and nobody had one. Do you know of any?

e12e 10y ago
As far as I know the isohunt case was settled, so no legal presendent was set? https://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-shuts-down-after-110-million-settlement-with-the-mpaa-131017/ https://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-shuts-down-after-110-millio... There's some more detail in the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoHunt#Legal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoHunt#Legal As far as I know there are two issues: 1) whatever the technical details, if it can be shown that the intent is overwhelmingly to fascilitate unlicensed copying - then any search engine could be held to be illegal. b) These other cases are old; there are technical differences between indexing magnet links and storing torrent files, not to mention running torrent trackers. While intent is still important, I'm not sure the technical differences don't matter now. As far as I know linking to illegal content is (mostly) legal.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Isohunt lost in court, and settled while appealing. >While intent is still important, I'm not sure the technical differences don't matter now. I'm not sure of this either, but the "DMCA doesn't affect hashes" argument hasn't been tested, and it's sufficiently murky that I don't think it can be pre-judged with confidence.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> I've asked elsewhere in this thread for a single example of this argument (for a torrent site) working in US courts, and nobody had one. Do you know of any? When The Pirate Bay falls under US jurisdiction, your request will matter.

by ikeboy 10y ago

e12e 10y ago

As far as I know the isohunt case was settled, so no legal presendent was set? https://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-shuts-down-after-110-million-settlement-with-the-mpaa-131017/ https://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-shuts-down-after-110-millio... There's some more detail in the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoHunt#Legal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoHunt#Legal As far as I know there are two issues: 1) whatever the technical details, if it can be shown that the intent is overwhelmingly to fascilitate unlicensed copying - then any search engine could be held to be illegal. b) These other cases are old; there are technical differences between indexing magnet links and storing torrent files, not to mention running torrent trackers. While intent is still important, I'm not sure the technical differences don't matter now. As far as I know linking to illegal content is (mostly) legal.

ikeboy 10y ago
Isohunt lost in court, and settled while appealing. >While intent is still important, I'm not sure the technical differences don't matter now. I'm not sure of this either, but the "DMCA doesn't affect hashes" argument hasn't been tested, and it's sufficiently murky that I don't think it can be pre-judged with confidence.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> I've asked elsewhere in this thread for a single example of this argument (for a torrent site) working in US courts, and nobody had one. Do you know of any? When The Pirate Bay falls under US jurisdiction, your request will matter.