Anti-Piracy Outfit Shuts Down 75 Torrent Sites
 

Interesting...


Source: http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...-sites-081212/

wow interesting...

politically Sweden needs to come on board with the rest of the developed world when it comes to protecting people's creations :2 cents:

The *dutch police*.. hide pirates, hide! this time you're in for it.. :1orglaugh I hope you don't have allergies!

Enter gideongallery asshat in 3,...2,...

Timeshifting will you free ;)

his bat phone that goes off every time there is an anti piracy thread must be broken. I'm sure he'll be in here soon telling us about time shifting and fair use, blah blah blah

not that big of a catch but hey at least something is being done.

wow they think that can beat that kind of smart guy to operate a torrent site !!!!!!!!

Sweden has the same laws as the "rest of the developed world". Difference is, it actually follows and enforces them, as opposed to say the US where sites are being taken offline illegally, without any actual laws to ban their practices.

Not taking sides here, just playing the devil's advocate. Unless LAWS are passed in every country regulating the behaviour of torrent trackers, tube sites etc, they are not illegal.

not a 100% correct sweden's laws has a piracy tax like canada
and their safe harbor provision is not as strong (which is why host can be bullied into taking down sites like this)

however torrent sites have done a good job of making the following points

1. there is no copyright material IN the torrrent file
2. people have a fair use right to the content (timeshfiting, back up, recovery)
3. the piracy tax authorizes a lot of the piracy in question (see cira vs rogers ruling in canada)

as a result many hosts are willing to continue to host the "illegal" sites even though not explictly protected by laws because they know the precedents have been set it court to defend their customers actions.

Remove 75 and 200 will emerge to take their place.

It does not matter if you make laws to stop this. There is a demand for the service and people will make a way to use it even if the dark suits say its illegal or not.

Brein guys are great. This isn't their first takedown and certainly won't be the last.

I still say we should spam the tubesites with non-adult content and if they remove the non-adult content, they are exercising control of the content and loose their safe harbor provision.

Take them all down:thumbsup

Soon Google will be the only source for torrents.

that is the stupidest statement i have ever heard

tube sites have the ability to remove content without losing their safe harbor provision protection.

Responding DCMA complient take down request results in them taking down content.


youtube removes porn and still has safe harbor protection.

I really hope that ideas like that are not comming from the courses your flying in your signature because your basically proving it a waste of time to show up.

No worries... some of the largest trackers in the world are still up.. so i'm puzzled.... which 75 were these? Some no name trackers?

You don't send them a DCMA notice. You let them exercise the control which will trigger the removal of the safe-harbor provisions.

Either you control the content or you have no control over the content and enjoy the safe harbor provision.

Spamming them with non-adult content using adult tags will definitely create some problems for the tube sites.

i really hope that is not the kind of advice you are getting at your university, because that is the stupidest statement

they can remove any content that violates their terms of service without giving up the protection of the safe harbor

take child porn for example, if the law said you lose your safe harbor protection if you have the ability to remove content then tube sites would become legally protected havens for kiddie porn because "they would have to leave that stuff up or they would not longer be protected by the DMCA"

Hundreds of host have removed porn from their web sites because it violated their TOS and none of them have ever given up the protection of the DMCA.

taking down non porn is just the reverse of that legally defined precedent.

If your piracy training course doesn't understand that basic principle you have just proven it is a complete waste of money.

If this applies to torrent sites, wouldn't it apply to tube-sites?

From the EFF's article, "What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law"

In the wake of recent decisions on indirect copyright liability, it appears that copyright
law has foisted a binary choice on P2P developers: either build a system that allows for thorough
monitoring and control over end-user activities, or build one that makes such monitoring and
control impossible.

Contributory infringement arises when you have ?knowledge? of, and ?materially
contribute? to, someone else?s infringing activity. The chief battleground for contributory
infringement in the P2P cases so far has been the ?knowledge? issue, with copyright owners
dumping box-loads of infringement notices on software developers, hoping to create
?knowledge? of the infringing activities of end-users.

The law of contributory infringement therefore presents a developer with a binary choice:
you can either include mechanisms that enable monitoring and control of user activities (and use
them to stop allegedly infringing activity when you receive complaints), or choose a truly
decentralized architecture wherein such monitoring and control is impossible without extensive
redesign. (Copyright owners have begun arguing that you must redesign future versions of your
software to prevent infringement. This argument has never been accepted, but the Supreme Court
did say that a failure to take steps to implement filtering can be relevant to establishing ?intent?
for inducement purposes.)

Vicarious liability also requires that the plaintiff demonstrate that you ?control,? and
receive ?benefit? from, someone else's infringing activity. The ?benefit? element will be difficult
to resist in many P2P cases (at least for commercial products)?so long as the software permits
or enables the sharing of infringing materials, this will serve as a ?draw? for users, which may be
enough ?benefit? to result in liability according to some precedents.

So the fight will likely center on the ?control? element. The Napster court found that the
right to block a user's access to the service was enough to constitute ?control.? The court also
found that Napster had a duty to monitor the activities of its users ?to the fullest extent? possible.
Accordingly, in order to avoid vicarious liability, a P2P developer would be wise to choose an
architecture that makes control over end-user activities impossible.

Too bad they don't shut down piracy tubesites

My opinions are my own and I do not represent the FSC or anybody else in any way.

Spamming them with non-adult content will result in:
1. the spammer being blocked = control
2. the content being monitored and removed on a regular basis = control
3. the tube site filled with worthless shit = useless.

Just my opinion.

It is easy to know if a video is adult or not adult. Everybody knows what a nipple looks like.

It is not so easy to know if a video is copyrighted or not. And then it is even more difficult to know if a copyrighted video is authorized. And it is even more difficult with porn. Amateurs can shoot professional looking porn, and professionals can shoot amateur porn.

A tube site can't be expected to know if a video belongs to you or not. And even they could, they can't be expected to know if you object to them hosting your copyrighted video. You might have uploaded it yourself.

People insist that the DMCA provides safe-harbor immunity. That is bullshit. It created a liability that never before existed and then immunized it in specific situations. In Canada, there is no DMCA; webhosts are never held liable for infringing content hosted for their customers.

beat me to it :thumbsup
the safe harbor provision was designed to balance the increase power of the takedown request to prevent those request from becoming a censorship tool. Canadian laws still follow the "get a court order" style take down notice unless the host chooses to accept DMCA take down as a condition of TOS (most do).

That's why I don't come accross a decent Madagascar 2 screener?

There are no valid points or excuses for encouraging people to crime activity. Especially when its done systematically.

the point i made was that it WAS NOT A CRIME.

Downloading a tv show you paid for from the torrents is as much a crime as walmart selling a vcr. For the exact same reason (timeshifting).

that is just a scratch

they should also shut down file sharing sites...

I agree...
RapidShare is torrent alternative...
Lots of illegal shit there...

Rapidshare, megaupload, 4shared, all illegal, but who cares?!

Even if you paid for it earlier (music, movies, shows..) does not give you the right or license to download/upload it. Its a crime, as long the copyrightholders did not give permission to such activity.