TorrentSpy ordered to pay $110m damages

[GeoffC]

Of importance , does Torrentspy have $110m - did they charge for these downloads - or was it all paid for by adverts .
If the latter , then aren't the advertisers liable too ?

[Razi]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Of importance , does Torrentspy have $110m - did they charge for these downloads - or was it all paid for by adverts .
If the latter , then aren't the advertisers liable too ?

So these sites adverstise stuff and charge for it. I read on this board that Demonoid put up music by unsigned or independent bands and shareware etc. Can't they prove that they are in the business of facilitating access to independent artists and advertisement for whatever (as long as it is legal) and some 'rogue users' (read pirates) make wrong use of their facilities. But then they are not Sony Corp whose video recorder was exempt from such law on similar grounds. Talk about double standards. Why do Sony get away with everything? Yeah catch the small fish and we have people here who are happy at this development. You can't protect the small fish, rest assured the net would reach everybody, including the big fish. Where will all this stop?

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by TadW

If I understood the case right, they didn't get convicted on base of file-sharing but because they destroyed the evidence (server logs). No?

I think they were convicted for facilitating illegal activity, and fined according to the max allowed penalty because of their destroying their records.

Originally Posted by Razi

Can't they prove that they are in the business of facilitating access to independent artists and advertisement for whatever (as long as it is legal) and some 'rogue users' (read pirates) make wrong use of their facilities.

Judging by the court's decision, obviously not: They clearly felt the primary purpose of TorrentSpy was to facilitate the illegal sharing of copywritten works, hence their decision.

Originally Posted by Razi

But then they are not Sony Corp whose video recorder was exempt from such law on similar grounds. Talk about double standards.

There is a point there... the VCR was clearly considered by the courts of the day to be primarily a home use device, as opposed to an intentional copyright infringement device. It also did not equal film in quality, and did not easily lend itself to mass-copying in high quality, so it presented less of a threat to studios.

(Maybe that's why VCRs are being slowly but surely phased out of use by the manufacturers, to be replaced by DVDs and technology they can more easily track and control... if they figure out how, that is.)

But that's all old news. Times have changed, and so has the ability to more easily copy and distribute others' works in high-quality formats. The latest laws (and penalties) seem to reflect that reality. And I think the artificially high penalties are a result of the novelty of it all, and a lack of more sensible precedents.

[JAcheson]

The problem is, torrent search sites aren't in the business of facilitating legal transactions, those are at best a smokescreen for their real business of facilitating piracy.

Note too that nobody is saying that BitTorrent should be prosecuted, which would be the closest parallel with the Sony VCR case. Because there are plenty of legal uses for torrents.

But, like weeding your garden, you have to put the effort into regularly stomping the major offenders in piracy, or else things will get completely out of control.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by JAcheson

But, like weeding your garden, you have to put the effort into regularly stomping the major offenders in piracy, or else things will get completely out of control.

This, too, has a parallel in the VCR years, when major movie copiers (duplicating and selling hundreds to thousands of illicit copies to the public) would get busted, while authorities turned a blind eye to individuals that copied movies for each other. Keeping the former under control was enough to allow them to ignore the losses from the latter.

[JAcheson]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This, too, has a parallel in the VCR years, when major movie copiers (duplicating and selling hundreds to thousands of illicit copies to the public) would get busted, while authorities turned a blind eye to individuals that copied movies for each other. Keeping the former under control was enough to allow them to ignore the losses from the latter.

Right, and the same thing has happened with illicit CD and DVD duplicators.

Keep in mind, too, that while there are some big players in the multimedia content industries, there are also a lot of small guys who are just scraping by, and really feel the sting of piracy. Most musicians, writers and artists fall into this category. They don't make enough money to do it full time.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by JAcheson

The problem is, torrent search sites aren't in the business of facilitating legal transactions, those are at best a smokescreen for their real business of facilitating piracy.

Note too that nobody is saying that BitTorrent should be prosecuted, which would be the closest parallel with the Sony VCR case. Because there are plenty of legal uses for torrents.

But, like weeding your garden, you have to put the effort into regularly stomping the major offenders in piracy, or else things will get completely out of control.

Get real! Things are already way out of control. They just haven't admited it yet, and such cases are just part of the few casualties that will occur before they do.

The cat is out of the bag, has eaten the mouse and canary and is on its way to finish the milk over in the fridge while the "owners" are screaming and running in mad circles around the broken cage.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Of importance , does Torrentspy have $110m - did they charge for these downloads - or was it all paid for by adverts .
If the latter , then aren't the advertisers liable too ?

It's not really important to the courts if TorrentSpy has $110M, any more than it would be important if a car thief had $20,000 to buy his own car, or only $20. To the law, a thief is a thief, and they (theoretically) levi punishments according to the act, not the crook's personal resources.

It's not important at all if they charged for the downloads, if they were convicted of facilitating their distribution.

I don't know if TorrentSpy had advertisers or supporters (having never been to the site), but if they did, and the advertisers/supporters knew they were distributing illegal material, then I agree they should be held liable for damages. I also know that in reality it doesn't always work that way.

[Rick C]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I don't know if TorrentSpy had advertisers or supporters (having never been to the site), but if they did, and the advertisers/supporters knew they were distributing illegal material, then I agree they should be held liable for damages. I also know that in reality it doesn't always work that way.

Well let's take a magical ride down the WAYBACK Machine and have a look http://web.archive.org/web/200601062...orrentspy.com/

Yep looks like they had advertisers (PC WORLD is one) and sold shirts too! I say they ought to sue anybody wearing clothes...which is why I am now officially naked!

[Argel]

Given the number of posts on this site giving advice on how to circumvent DRM, can it be long before they come for Mobileread?

Sauce for the goose etc.

Argel

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Argel

Given the number of posts on this site giving advice on how to circumvent DRM, can it be long before they come for Mobileread?

Yes, it is discussed among members. But there aren't as many posts "giving advice on how to circumvent DRM" as you might suggest... far fewer than the posts dedicated to finding and enjoying e-books, and discussing the state of the industry (as we are now).

And as it is Mobileread policy to prohibit direct instructions or details on how to circumvent DRM (or, by extension, to pirate copywritten works), and to remove any such posts by members where they occur, I don't think Mobileread has anything to be worried about.

[TadW]

If I understood the case right, they didn't get convicted on base of file-sharing but because they destroyed the evidence (server logs). No?

[Guesser]

Does this mean that Google's going to be in trouble when the RIAA discovers that you can do this: "insert song name here" filetype:torrent
?

Considering that TorrentSpy didn't hold any infringing material and merely served links, I wonder what sort of criteria need to be met to be liable for "facilitating" infringement. Are they going to hold telecom companies liable for facilitating the organization of crimes over the phone? Hard to say where to draw the line.. though it was a civil case I suppose, and thus as far as I'm aware, people can be found accountable on flimsier cases.

[HarryT]

These points have already been made earlier in the thread, Guesser. You may find it useful to read the responses already posted.

[Guesser]

I saw a bit about it (I did miss your Sony vs. Universal post though) -- I was pointing out the "filetype" feature which fully makes Google into a torrent index. If Google put a single option on their page that said "search torrents" and put the filetype feature to use, it now seems likely that they would be held liable for infringement.

To add something that's perhaps newer, I believe that terms of copyright exclusivity should be shortened. They are needlessly long beyond what would best serve the public interest.