MPAA Has Nothing On Us, isoHunt Tells Court
 

http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-has-not...-court-110507/

while they paraphrase quite a bit the entire recording of the testimony is avalable

the key point which i don't believe this lawyer hit hard enough

is that the grokster case used as a bases for the injunction discussed a model where the entire transactional process was under the design of a single application

ISOHunt is just one independent cog in the process.

They provide a link to a torrent file, which contains no copyright material with in

That torrent file creates a session but ONLY if you have a torrent client to process the torrent

That session creates a connection to a tracker BUT ony if that tracker is available

That tracker points out potential location of pieces but only if SEEDER/PEERS are available

100% of those pieces are available only if the SEED density is over 100%

and lastly those pieces are reordered on the local hard drive to make the completed copy.

the infringment is seperated from ISOHUNT by at least 6 degree of seperation.

You are the smartest retard to ever post on this board. Like Rainman without the math skills.

No one here cares about copyright infringement except those who lose money as their shit is being stolen and no one here cares about defending thieves except you.

Any idiot can see that copyright law has not caught up with the technological realities of today and until you start denouncing theft and the wide scale theft thats also a part of what you defend, then you are just as bad as the thieves and those that profit from it.

isohunt are smart but idiots. they know what is going on, they dont have to commit the actual crime to be a conspirator.

He continually argues that the heroin producer or distributor or drug dealers accountant and all the others that KNOWINGLY benefit from and profit from the illegal production and sale of heroin are innocent of any crime simply because they are all one cog in the process and not actually selling the heroin on the street... then he continues to make retarded arguments about the theoretical and implausible "legal" use or possession of heroin as if it somehow indemnifies all those who break the law or benefit from those who break the law.

except there is NO copyright material at all except in the very last step (and if you stretch the second last step)

extending liability to metadata for a session is the equal to extending liability to the phone book publisher/telephone company since you use the phone to call up the drug dealer.

I like drugs and drug producing...

Let's just laugh ...

This is a pre-paid phone service that promotes the use of the phones for drug deals or the gun shop that says hey buy my guns so you can kill more people.

In this case, the creator of torrent (ie creator of the gun, maker of the phone) isn't liable, but the person selling the crime is, which is ISOHunt.

I understand all your endless arguments and this retarded maze of circular logic.

At the end of the day, you are arguing for the benefit of thieves, whether you choose to see it that way or not. You spin it into a backwards argument about "rights" of the VERY tiny minority and the only ones who are on your side and share your views are "thieves".

The only ones using torrent sites for legit reason as you love to claim so many are, are those masses which live in your personal fantasy world. In the real world, its just a bunch of people looking for free shit who are looking to avoid paying for it (myself included)... which is why they have so much traffic. "free" = "traffic"
:2 cents:

pls kill yourself. thank you,

really want to show that EXPLICT declaration anywhere within the court records.

it doesn't exist, because no site owner is that stupid.

BTW if that your arguement you just made the point of ISOHunt's lawyer

they need to show proof of such an action to criminalize their behavior.

fact more than 1/2 of all torrent traffic is tv shows.

80% of the 25 lists is broadcast tv shows

99.5% of the US population has at least 1 tv

97% has at least 2 tvs


just the people using torrents as a VCR is a MAJORITY

add in the people who use it for music (from countries that have a piracy tax)

add in the people who are simply recovering content they bought

add in people who are using the swarm to format shift their dvd /cd into avi/mp3

and that majority grows pretty quickly.

the only way you can claim that legitimate uses are a minority is by ignoring fair use and only counting copyright holder authorized distribution.

Here is an example for you to get your head around. Have you ever seen those big spools of copper cable that utilities leave sitting on the side of the road while they are doing work?

If someone comes to me and says "Hey... do you know where I can get one of those big spools of copper cable without paying for it?" and I point them to one... I am guilty of criminal conspiracy.

Here is another: If you come to me and say "Hey... do you know where I can buy some cocaine?" and I refer them to a dealer... I am guilty of conspiracy to deliver cocaine.

Here is the fun part... it doesn't matter if someone goes and steals the copper cable or buys the cocaine. I am still guilty of criminal conspiracy.

Now... if Isohunt is linking to torrent that they know allow someone to download illegally obtained copyrighted materials... that is Conspiracy to Commit Copyright Infringement due to Aiding and abetting a criminal offense.

LOL so all parts are downloaded and re-assembled on the end user's machine COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

Do courts really have to be educated about this sort of shit?
Whats worse is they can not decide on a verdict whether it means theft or not...

Peer networks is theft pure and simple...

The court system is Pathetic.
It must be amusing to see a dumb lawyer dance around the details trying to explaine away how re assembly of information is not theft.

and all you have to do to make the arguement that this case is equivalent is show that exact conversation.

without the consersation there is no conspiracy.

even a link to copyright material is not infringement under the DMCA, and this even further removed from a direct link to content (by 3-4 steps at least).

that an example where the transaction is always a crime

fair use gives people the right to reaquire the content they have paid for

using the torrents like a vcr is timeshifting

using the swarm as an sms server is backup and recovery

and using the swarm as a avi converter is format shifting.





internet connections allow you to violate copyright.

router redirect to infringing content

browser let you surf to infringing content


all these technologies are not liable for the POTENTIAL infringement that happens

torrents can be used to infringe ot fair use (see above)

the infringement is not absolute it only POTENTIAL.

Under what law is it illegal to obtain copper for free or to help someone obtain copper for free?

Cocaine is illegal. Movies aren't.

How are they supposed to know:

a) what the material is
b) whether the material is copyrighted
c) whether copyrighted material has been authorized for distribution or not

It wasn't me who provided plans on how to rob the bank!

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid...G-Hc0QHk1MjcCA

google how to make a pipe bomb

Ask someone what Google is for
Ask somewhat a torrent if for

Wasn't aware that I actually bought all those TV shows when I pay my cable bill. Somehow I thought I was only paying to be able to view them when they aired, or by using a DVR to watch it when I have the time. Not that I actually now own them outright.

reread the betamax case

if you only had a right to view them when they aired sony would have lost that case

if you only got to timeshift using authorized devices then sony would have been forced to pay liciencing fees for every vcr they sold

the whole point of the fair use is for the scope of the fair use , the content is not controlled by the exclusive right of the copyright holder


for the scope of the fair use, the content is basically public domain.

the point is that if the ruling was as broad as this one was google would also be effected
that why google filed a friends of the court brief in this case objecting to the scope of the decision.

6 degrees of separation is enough to connect any two sites in the world.

and if copyright monopoly allows the censorship to any site within that scope you can kiss free speech goodbye

Again.. Paying my cable bill does not mean I now own the content. Just that I have the rights to timeshift the shows that I've paid to be able to see so I can watch them at a more convenient time, not over and over again etc.

Regardless, the laws are what they are and until actual intelligent people change them, the rampant piracy, stealing of content will continue.

Is this the same explicit declarations you've made? And what site owner?

No, I showed that educating someone on how to do a crime by giving the tools, information and showing them how to commit a crime, is illegal, which is what ISOHunt is doing, much like Limewire did.

Downloading of the movies/show isn't the crime here, it's the person uploading it without the rights to do so. The item is time shifted for personal use, but that does not and has never granted legal rights to distribute copyrighted material.

I've always found it odd how sites like this never sell the bomb making materials, info on how/where to place them, and which are the best targets, times of day, etc... It's almost like, like these websites have a free speech right as long as they don't cross criminal lines.

you might want to re look at the betamax case or the testimony to congress after they lost that case

they clearly talked about people saving their favorite shows for years on tape cassettes.

the right of timeshifting has always been that expansive.




yup and this ruling overstepped those bounds by a long shot.

limewire gives you a tool that specifically allows you to infringe. in and of itself the tool as a whole provides everything you need to download content

a torrent does not

that a huge difference

without an additional client like utorrent

a torrent is nothing but a text file


that is a huge difference.

actually this is the only crime, WHEN you don't have a fair use right to the content (haven't bought it)

except your never distributing the content, if yu tried to play only the pieces i gave you the file would not work.

your only cacheing those pieces to the swarm so you can recover it again in the future

torrents are the best/cheapest backup for content that you don't care if it kept confidendial.


under both senerios it fair use.

btw you can't own copyright content, the copyright monpoly prevents normal property rights

you only bought a right to view the content, and the copyright holder has no right to put a time limit on that right to view.

And if I download a blockbuster movie file straight from a website link it is as if my ISP is the middle man handing it to me?

ISOhunt isn't a torrent, it's software.... it may not be on the pc, but it is the key to providing access to the pirated materials and it still educates on how/what to do to access the pirated material and the means to access it. Another words, they're knowingly doing it, just like limewire.




Or when they provide access to DRM protected material, like theater releases.


Accept you are distributing it... bit by bit, just because you take the car apart when you steal it and sell it one part at a time doesn't change the fact that it's still theft.

If the cache/swarm was your own and only yours, sure that would work... but what they're doing is providing a way to access & distribute copyrighted material to others, that do not own the rights to even download it.

It's fair use the minute you own it and nobody else can access it that doesn't legally own it.

People have tried to take gun manufacturers to court, because people were murdered with their product.

In every case the gun manufacturer won.

You cannot blame the manufacturer of something for someone using it for an illegal purpose.

You do some crazy mental gymnastics to make this all fit into your reality.

you still don't get it it what you can do with the software by itself that important

if you were to use limewire you would get content

if you were to use isohunt all you get is a text file (with the torrent extension)

absolutely nothing happens until you use a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM to process the data in the text file.






if that the standard every single router on the internet is guilty of facilitating copyright infringement


try again, if what you were saying were true then vcr would have a system lock that prevented you from playing the tape cassettes in anything but the machine that recorded.

Saying to your neighbour can i borrow your copy of knight rider the power went out on my vcr is LEGAL.


the swarm is network effect version of that action, it superior because of the NETWORK EFFECT. Each seeder becomes a FREE redundant backup for everyone else.



that has never been the case even with previously established technologies

if my company has an SMS it not illegal just because someone could "hack" the network and get the copy of office of the install point.

Even if the "hack" was because someone left their password insecured.

You can't deny people there fair use right just because someone can use the technology too infringe. Fact is the betamax case proves it, if you were required to make sure the technology could not infringe at all before the fair use could be granted the vcr would have been outlawed.

That's because they don't tell you to go out and kill other people with the guns and they didn't help you plan/prep for the crime as well.


I would love to get a copy of that book, amazing.. two sets of murders, the book banned and extra ones destroyed - holy crap.

think there is a link to the pdf at the bottom there.

read this 100 times gideon

If I renamed the limewire files to .blah then you got .blah, if I broke it apart into my own format and split it up among limewire users, I'm still distro of copyrighted material. I can make it so the files aren't usable until more software is applied as well, like pw protection, encryption, etc...

Any fool can see all they're doing is calling it different words so they can work around micro loop holes in the law.


Sure, if the router was helping or educating people on how commit the crime, but it's not..




Borrowing implies returning... No pirate has ever returned anything to the "owner."


A cool, handy technology doesn't make it legal cool, handy technology.



Yes it has.

We aren't talking about hacks, which is a criminal activity normally doing criminal things.


It would have to be fair use to be denied fair use.

And p2p, limewire and the mix of many others have already proven the technology CAN infringe , so yes their has been a case with previous established technologies.

So in the analogy you say they don't tell you to go out and kill other people.

Explain to me the real world example of someone "telling you to go out and kill other people".

And remember... Downloading copyrighted music, copyrighted movies, and copyrighted images is not against the law. It is only copyright infringement if the person who downloads it is not authorized to copy/view it.

Of course we can't find guns shops that say "buy a guy and then go kill someone" and they for sure don't tell you how to do it, that's the point - it's illegal. These sites/services are telling the visitors how/what/where of it all.

It's not about downloading, the problem is distributing it - which isn't a very clear cut thing.

The only thing that is going to save these guys asses in the future is very active/progressive filtering of copyrighted material. Not just removing it, filtering it so it can't come back. And that's in the law!

really you might want to look any one of the cacheing rulings that has come down the pike

the key difference is the act in and of itself an infringement

if the copy isn't a working copy when you take your actions into account your not distributing shit.



really your now trying to argue that they guy recorded knight rider is the copyright owner

that who your borrowing the copy from.


nope the fact that the fair use of timeshifting already authorized sharing (see borrowing a friends timeshifted copy above)


except there is no minimum security standard that establish liability
that the point
if isohunt says in their disclaimer only download if you have a right to the content (fair use or authorized)

and you download without cede authorization, that a hack too

that as much of a hack as if i left the password blank on the guest account and put an unauthorized declaration on the welcome message



reread those case they only proved that a technology can "IN and of itself" infringe

isohunt doesn't in and of itself infringe, you need at least a third party torrent client for any infringement to occur

in fact without the third party torrent client infringement is impossible

is it possible that courts will rule that it the same thing

possibly

have they done it yet

Hell NO

This isn't a cache, so it makes no difference. And even if you give out 1 byte of data, it's still giving it away.





hehe, funny you can't recognize "actual" fair use when it's shown to you.



Time shifting does not authorize distribution of the copyrighted material... being that we're talking about torrents and not a shared copy which is fair use. But make 10,000 copies and try to give those out on ebay - find out how fast fair use dries up.


Yeah their is, it's not like the person that had his wifi hacked is going to jail for what the people did.

And that's not a hack, it's not like pw hacks at all, and it really has nothing to do with what you said.




Yes it does... and yes courts have already ruled. Maybe not on the actual software but they've got them another way.

First DRM content (theater releases) from the recording, transfer, upload/download, anyone in between is guilty of a crime.

And they WILL have to add active/progressive filtering to ensure copyrighted materials can not be found or they will be put out of business... just like alllll the other piracy cases coming down the pipe.

Gideon, just answer one simple question. Don't get into some long-winded doubletalk about rights, and fair-use, or whatever.

Just say YES or NO.

Do you create or produce an actual product which gets a payment from those who wish to purchase it?

YES or NO.

YES

padding because yes is too short an answer

why because you say so

cacheing put a byte of data on another machine too

if that your definition of infringement the fair use of cacheing would disappear completely
too even if you argued that swarm is not cache based transaction.



sure it does

the mpaa failed to get an injunction to prevent tapes from playing in other vcr (vcr that didn't record the show)
if timeshifting didn't authorize distribution they would have most certainly won that one

the didn't so timeshifting does authorize distribution



huge difference

your giving away 10k complete working copies, when you share a torrent 10k copies may ultimately produced

but your not giving anyone even one complete working copy to anyone.

As i have said already, complete working copy is one of the key differences between grokster case and this one.





actually you need to reread grokster again

the supreme court choose not to decide if access shifting was a fair use because each transaction included 1 infringing action (sharing a complete working copy of the content) and one potentially non infringing (downloader) assuming access shifting was valid.


they never ruled against the fair use, they just said the decision would be moot because even if they ruled in favor of the defendent the transaction would still have an infringing component and therefore still be infringing anyway.


we are talking about a technolgy that allows the download without requiring anyone give away a complete working copy to anyone.

which means this time, access shifting as a fair use has a legitimate RIGHT to be CONSIDERED.

The summary judgement denies that right to be considered at all.