Let me start off by saying that The Movie Blog does NOT support or endorse piracy.
The very popular site called IsoHunt would not be the first torrent site to receive a cease and desist order to remove one or more of their indexing links that lead to pirated music or movies. For the most part they comply. But in an interesting twist as a response to a CRIA threat that they would sue, the Torrent site is SUING the CRIA!
RGFilter has an interesting article about that.
Earlier this year the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) sent a Cease And Desist letter to popular torrent seach site Isohunt, demanding that the site be taken down for copyright violation. If founder Gary Fung refused, the CRIA has threatened to sue them to the not so compressed tune of $20,000 per infringing recording.
Isohunt is trying something different. They’re suing the CRIA right back.”
Now I am the least lawyer like guy on The Movie Blog, but that just sounds funny to me. The torrent site that encourages piracy is Suing the CRIA, and this is not the first time they have done this. They have a current suit pending against the MPAA as well.
These pirates got some balls. The argument is this; IsoHunt is not providing files. They are simply an index site. They point to the files, and what you do with them is your own business. They benefit from this through traffic with ads. They do not benefit directly from the linking or downloading of files.
I often relate piracy to the drug trade because it makes for a fun analogy, however I do not take the drug trade as light either. So lets look at it this way.
If someone asks to buy drugs from you, you would say no. Because you are not selling drugs. (DRUGS BAD!) But if you say, “that guy down the street sells drugs” are you now a drug dealer? Can you be arrested for that? No, you can’t. There is a bigger moral issue that you shouldn’t be telling people where to buy drugs, but there is no law against that. And the financial gain they get from this is like saying they sold advertising space in the window of their store because a lot of people walk by here (to go buy drugs). They are not financially benefiting directly from the acquisition of the files.
There is a retail outlet in the mall that sells drug paraphernalia, magazines published about it, tshirts supporting the habit and even pots and soil specially formulated to grow it. But they do not sell the drug. They are not breaking the law.
So in a strict legal sense, IsoHunt seems to have a good case. But morally they are benefiting from the support of the illegal act. So if this sets a precedent, it could enable other sites to more freely offer these offending links. Things can get out of control by allowing this. If they win this case the law would have an example of a site that defended its stand as “just indexing” then more sites could rampantly do the same without fear of accusation.
Do they ban the use of Torrents altogether while so many organizations and companies have found very legitimate and legal ways to distribute their updates or open source software using it?
So where do we draw the line? If torrent indexing sites are untouchable (not doing anything illegal), how do they resolve or even address illegal downloading? Do they change the law to prosecute against indexing sites as well? How far the other way does that go? If TMB links to a YouTube video that violates copyright (a lot of YouTube does) will we be held liable for the same violation?
Should the laws be amended to include indexing? Google indexes freely as their god given American right allows the freedom of information. Google is not responsible for the accuracy or validity of such information, it just points to it.
Presuming you are against piracy, do you think IsoHunt (or any indexing site) SHOULD be stopped?
@Dead_Makis, what country are you from where stealing $20 puts you in jail. But murdering someone doesn’t? In my country (USA) if you get caught with murder you will without a doubt be going to jail. in some cases the death penalty, where applicable. But if you steal $20 from someone you will get a fine. (basically a slap on the wrist compared to the latter) I’m sure your country’s laws are not as you say, you seem to have a misconstrued vision of the law around you. In some cases as Rodney has pointed out you get into more trouble for piracy than drugs.
Whether you get away with a crime or what happens after the fact does not make it NOT a crime.
You can compare one crime to another when the discussion is “WHAT IS ILLEGAL”…. because the topic isnt penalty, or odds of you getting away with it, or getting a lawyer to get you out of it.
Illegal is illegal. Regardless of the crime.
TO RODNEY:
If you steal 20 dollars from someone because you need it, is a crime. If you don’t have money for a laywer you end up in jail. Killing someone is a crime get a good laywer and you are out of jail (in some cases). There are a lot of crimes and you just can’t compare one crime to another, espacially 2 so different crimes like movie piracy and drugs to make a point.
@Mike obviously if you inform an undercover detective where drugs are sold without knowing who he/she was you will get busted, but the whole point is if you tell a normal run of the mill person and he/she goes to the police and tells them you pointed out a drug dealer for the sake of purchasing something. That can be fought in court as a “my word against your word” there isn’t any “real” evidence of you committing a crime.
@Godfather you said “Whether or not Google knows all of the sites it shows in searches are legal or illegal is not relevant. If they know that those sites linked are illegal, they then are aiding the activity to take place.” Of course Google knows that they link to illegal sites, its like saying that i started to grow a garden, and i threw a bunch of random seeds into the soil and some happen to be marijuana plants, does it make it more or less illegal that i have them growing without my knowledge in my backyard? No i will get fined/charged the same just as if i planted them there on purpose. Also, you seem to contradict yourself by saying it is not relevant that Google knows they link to illegal sites then you continue to say that if they are linking to said sites then it is aiding criminal activity.
I don’t know Canadian law, but in US law in drugs it would be a violation of the law. I have heard of a court case which this had occurred.
A man directed an undercover cop to where he could by drugs. Once he gave him directions he is considered an “accomplice” to the drug leader.The man was convicted to two years and prison and a fine.
I do legal studies and find this case to be one of the most frustrating ones.
I also agree with Rodney’s claim that committing a crime is comparable to committing a crime.
@Dead_Makis… How is commiting a crime not comparable to commiting a crime?
Just because you rank them differently on your moral scale does not make it any more of a crime. In fact, you can get punished far more harshly for Piracy than you can for Drug Trafficking.
How’s that for fair?
i say it isnt bad…..but i am a communist so…SHARE DAMN IT!
drug dealers n piracy are not the same……sure u might have a license but can u drive a motorcyle? no ….just like your analogy rodney….though i completey understand what you where going for….both are illegal….but the fact is that if you smoke meth over a 100 times….you have a problem…where as if u have downloaded 100 torrents….then your average …..so…..ya……naked fat chicks are naked chicks but….do u really want to sex them up over the non fat chick…..idk do you?
Fisrt of all comparing drug dealers to piracy is stupid to say the least. Yes there is a moral issue here but drugs and movie piracy are two completely different things in any way I can think (morally too).
i don’t think that isohunt suing the CRIA is something you can support, but you made something even worst comparing drug to piracy.It’s like you saying all this people who download or share movies they must feel the same guild as giving someone or taking drugs. How stupid is that? In big matters like drugs maybe we must be more carefull in what we say.
I am not sure about stoping sites like IsoHunt. But i’m sure that in some years (or less) the big movie studios will start cooperation with them as the music industry made with Napster. And I believe that suing the CRIA maybe is the first step (think that over and you will see my point)
Rodney
Actually, the aiding and abetting is correct for the simple reason that you know an illegal activity is taking place, and are condoning the action to happen. You are now subjecting heresy (my word against yours) into the argument, and that’s not the point of the argument. If you knowingly acknowledge a crime is taking place, and do nothing to refute it, you are enabling the crime to happen and therefore are subject to criminal actions. Whether or not Google knows all of the sites it shows in searches are legal or illegal is not relevant. If they know that those sites linked are illegal, they then are aiding the activity to take place.
The argument of whether or not you allow a crime to take place is on your shoulders, and by condoning the action, you are saying “it’s ok for this illegal action to happen” and therefore can be charged under the criminal code of Canada.
Let’s not confuse the arguments you are making here: The torrent site is not doing anything illegal, other than allowing the transfer of copyrighted materials. Whether or not they have the files in their possession or not is not the argument. They are allowing the transportation of the stolen property through the use of their service. That is why they are getting sued. If they allowed only content that was not pirated, there wouldn’t be a case. However, by allowing the movement of copyrighted materials through their service (knowingly) they are allowing the illegal actions to work through them, and are subject to the laws of this, and other, countries.
Let’s use a different analogy for a moment: smoking under the age of 18 is not illegal, but buying/selling cigarettes by/to a minor is. IF you’re standing outside a convenience store and a minor asks you to buy a pack of smokes for them, hands you the money, and you go inside, buy the smokes and come back out and give them to the kids, you are doing an illegal act and can be prosecuted for it. On the other hand, if you have a smoke in your possession, and give the kid a smoke, you are not committing an offence and won’t be charged (maybe discipline is in order, but it’s not criminal). There’s a minor difference in the action, but a major difference in the consequence.
Put in another way, if you know the store is selling cigarettes to minors and do not tell them to stop the illegal action (either by your word or by getting the authorities involved) you can be charged with aiding the criminal intent (not saying you will be but that you can be). Remember that there are different laws for different actions. Just because you are not profiting from the action, does not mean you are not committing an illegal action.
um… how about this:
illegally downloading movies online is fucking illegal.
what part of that^^ dont you understand? its clear and simple i…
and dont give me the “its accesible to everyone” bullshit either because what YOURE impling is that if it was accesible to rape a 16 year old girl without anyone evr knowing about it (not even her) youd do it. and THAT is fucking sick. same thing only one is obviously more serious
if its accesible to do bad shit it doesnt make it okay to do it. just freaking go to netflix…going to a clean legal website and using like 3 bucks is just as easy. how cheap do you have to be?
Godfather, you are incorrect. If you tell someone where to buy drugs, you cannot be arrested for it. It can never be proved in the court of law, and its indirect. Your assumption that it would count as aiding and abetting is inaccurate.
Google tells people how to get to billions of websites a day, many of which may not be legal? Guess we should sue them too?
Type in any show with the word TORRENT after it in google… now you have done the same thing the indexing sites have.
I am not saying its right, but there is no law that makes it illegal.
Studios should work with Torrents rather than fight them. The studios are going to lose no matter what they do to try and stop you. The internet is just going to get bigger and much more faster. Let’s say that I own and run Rafa Studios. Everyone wants to see my new movie “Wheelchair Mercenaries” starring Arnold and Sly. As a studio owner I obviously want to make a profit from this movie. I know for a fact that there will be a paying movie audience and there will be pirating of this movie. In the trailer of this movie I will tell the audience that it will be released Xmas day and two weeks after that a dvd quality download from the Rafa studios site for five bucks via Torrent. Yeah, it’s taking a chance, but at least Rafa studios is working with Torrents and not fighting them. I know there a lot of scenarios that I’m missing here, but I made my point.
I love that people’s opinions are taken as law when this is not the case.
Fact: If you have information to a criminal act, and do not report it, you are considered aiding and abetting, therefore, although not as liable to the extent of committing the crime itself, you are still punishable by law.
Rodney, you’re drug analogy DOES NOT WORK, because as soon as you say to the person “that guy over there has it”, you become a part of the illegal act. You could very well be arrested and charged, even though you are not profiting from the transaction/act of the crime itself.
The issue of pirating is a big deal in this (entertainment) business. Fact of the matter is, sites that link to where the illegal information is stored for transmission is still punishable. There are ways around the illegal aspect of it, but it’s still illegal to do. The Google/You Tube analogy can only work so far, as there have been many instances where videos were (and still are) pulled off for copyright infringements. Watch and READ any movie trailers or any TV broadcast of a sporting event, and it says “rebroadcast of this program, in whole or in part, is not permissible without the express WRITTEN consent of…” ABC company, or “is only provided for private home viewing, and is not authorized for public viewing”.
The argument against Google and You Tube can only go so far, if you have proof that they (considering now they are one company, who cares) do not have the consent to rebroadcast the clips. Remember this, most clips/rights are owned by a production company, NOT the director/writer/creator of the product. Therefore, if someone wants to watch a clip from a Fox TV show, and Google has rights to rebroadcast Fox clips, Google can allow this. If Google deems it should not show the clip, it’s taken down.
Nonetheless, pirating is a massive abuse of privileges we have to certain information, and the fact that “someone else is doing the illegal act” is not a sufficient argument to excuse yourself from the activity. Is it any wonder why the government and large corporations want to administer the new Internet2 and all its limitations upon the world?
ill be soo pissed if this site goes down
since we Canadians cant get all the good american shows when the states does this is my only source…
I wont watch MOVIES off illegal sites for a few reasons- those being- I feel its wrong, and two -the quality in many cases is bad although sometimes very good.
Although many people I know tell me that they do and some even burn a copy and lend it to there friends. Kristina is right, many of these illegal movie sites have new films up within days. Piracy is still a huge problem.
One other thing-Its amazing how many times I put up a new trailer off You tube on my site and You tube gets a copyright infringement order and removes it only to put it back a few days later when the studio says its now OK! Thats a pain in the neck!
@Unoriginal Guy – Even Canada is blocked from a lot of streaming content.
And though it is technically piracy, which I do not endorse, there is a fair amount of BBC tv that I just LOVE and cannot get any other way.
Rodney if you have issues with isohunt than you must have issues with google and yahoo. Isohunt is nothing more than a search engine, the same torrents you can search for through isohunt can be found by using google.
Here is a better ananolgy to you’re “drug dealing”. Suing isohunt for people downloading illegal material is like suing the owner of a road becuase his road allowed a car to drive up to a bank and rob it.
I won’t condone piracy but I will say:
– It is impossible to get streamed content online in 99% of the world
– Content can take up to a year to be released elsewhere
– Most Music sites offer crippled expensive music that is worse than CDs in every way
– Video/Music work on all devices (not just certified ones)
Try leaving North America once in a while and see how many “Sorry but that content isn’t available here.” Messages you see.
(Type your comment here. Make sure you’ve read the commenting rules before doing so)
One of my favorite sites tvlinks.co.uk was taken down last year because of this same issue. It was simply an indexing site with links to movies and shows. i also think the guy running the site was arrested. This was also in the U.K. so I don’t know how that would translate to the states.
Comparing it to Google or YouTube would be a lot closer analogy. All three link to third party sites supplying both legal and illegal content.
Why is a Torrent Search engine compared to a drug dealer while both Google and YouTube doing exactly the same thing get off scott free?
Sorry, but I watch streaming flicks online a LOT. There’s no justification that I can give for it, so I’m not going to even try to. Like Jon above me said, some people will never pay for movies when they are so easily accessible online. You can find a movie online within the first weekend of release, sometimes even eariler than that! Hell, Guy Ritchie’s RocknRolla is online right now, and it doesn’t even open until next month. There’s really nothing to be done about it in most instances. ISuing certain sites is like trying to cure a stab wound with a little band-aid. You’re still going to have massive amounts of blood-letting, err, downloading and streaming going on.
ryan, i use napster, much eaiser than pirating music. If something like that comes along for movies, im for it. Netflix is close for rentals, but you cant get stuff soon enough. The real issue is they can sue all the piraters you want, and they just come up with a different way to pirate. The movie studios need to create a better delivery system and lower prices, and piracy will go down. Then accept that some people will never pay, no matter what you do.
ya if u take iso down then u need to take all the other spots down too….the google video clip page…youtube etc…..and well the fact is these ae billion dollar co. so it aint gonna happen…as a avid DL i can say that i have introduced 100’s of people (most are old or people who really dont no much about internet) how to dl torrents and stuff…..they are all amazed out how the system works…..as i tell them about indexing etc but i really tell them to google …..winamp,mininova,divx…..now there dl illegal stuff…woooot!
Irregardless of morality, I think they are doing nothing illegal, just as the youtube and google examples you gave are also not doing anything illegal.
good article.
They need to stop the piracy at the source rather than going after the indexing guys.
That drug dealer analogy is a good one.
I think that IsoHunt should not be getting sued at all. And if the CRIA want to keep being the pricks they are, they should go after the source.
However, I am also all for piracy as it stands NOW. Meaning that if the music industry (in this case movie industry) got off it’s rich ass and hired someone (because we all know they are too technologically impaired) to make a service that is so good that no one would WANT to pirate, then I would be all for that. But no, just keep suing everybody and soon kids will be “SOOOO scared” that they won’t touch another torrent. Which just isn’t the case.
But sue away, sue away.