3 ms·

This will be interesting to watch. Torrent sites only host torrent files; I'm sure he'll argue that the DMCA requests were invalid because the people filing th

This will be interesting to watch. Torrent sites only host torrent files; I'm sure he'll argue that the DMCA requests were invalid because the people filing them didn't own copyright to the torrent files, which were the only thing that the site distributed. Where do we draw the line? Do we prosecute people for posting a magnet link? If a movie studio puts an MP4 of a not-yet-released film on its servers, is it illegal to link to it? It will be an interesting case to watch if he takes it all the way to trial. I don't think it's nearly as open-and-shut as the DOJ would like everyone to believe every case it files is though.

posterboy 10y ago
Aren't file-hashes derived works?
- downandout 10y ago
  That would be news to me. More likely, they're just going with a conspiracy argument (and indeed he is charged with conspiracy): he didn't actually commit copyright infringement himself, but aided others in doing so. Even then, conspiracy laws have very specific requirements for conviction, and this may not check all the boxes. It will be interesting to see.
- pYQAJ6Zm 10y ago
  There is a very improbable risk of hash collision for two different original works, so… no, they aren’t? Interesting (and somewhat very worrying) proposal, however.
syshum 10y ago
>>> Torrent sites only host torrent files; They do not even host those any more All of the Torrent Sites are only Indexers of Magnet Links, no different than google. The BT Client then takes the Magnet Link, downloads the torrent file from peers in the network. When you Click on a download link from KAT nothing is downloaded from their server, it is simply a protocol link that tells your BT client what file you want. It is Technologically No different than a HTTP url, so if KAT if violating Copyright law then every other Search Engine is as well
- downandout 10y ago
  I always use magnet links, but I thought KAT offered multiple formats for each link, including the magnet link but also the torrent file. In any event, I agree with you that this is an incredibly slippery slope the government is going down here. They are also taking a significant risk in filing this case, as an acquittal will set a precedent that operating a torrent site does not constitute copyright infringement.

posterboy 10y ago

Aren't file-hashes derived works?

downandout 10y ago
That would be news to me. More likely, they're just going with a conspiracy argument (and indeed he is charged with conspiracy): he didn't actually commit copyright infringement himself, but aided others in doing so. Even then, conspiracy laws have very specific requirements for conviction, and this may not check all the boxes. It will be interesting to see.
pYQAJ6Zm 10y ago
There is a very improbable risk of hash collision for two different original works, so… no, they aren’t? Interesting (and somewhat very worrying) proposal, however.

syshum 10y ago

>>> Torrent sites only host torrent files; They do not even host those any more All of the Torrent Sites are only Indexers of Magnet Links, no different than google. The BT Client then takes the Magnet Link, downloads the torrent file from peers in the network. When you Click on a download link from KAT nothing is downloaded from their server, it is simply a protocol link that tells your BT client what file you want. It is Technologically No different than a HTTP url, so if KAT if violating Copyright law then every other Search Engine is as well

downandout 10y ago
I always use magnet links, but I thought KAT offered multiple formats for each link, including the magnet link but also the torrent file. In any event, I agree with you that this is an incredibly slippery slope the government is going down here. They are also taking a significant risk in filing this case, as an acquittal will set a precedent that operating a torrent site does not constitute copyright infringement.