Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Cloud Google Piracy The Courts The Internet Your Rights Online

IsoHunt To Court: Google Is the Bigger Problem 270

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the where-have-i-heard-that-before dept.
Krystalo writes "isoHunt is still fighting its legal battle with the MPAA. In the latest episode, the torrent website filed a reply brief to the US Court of Appeals in which it suggests that Google, and not IsoHunt, is the largest BitTorrent search engine on the Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IsoHunt To Court: Google Is the Bigger Problem

Comments Filter:
  • Oh snap! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:23PM (#35505926)
    Let's see now what the MPAA intends to do with this information.
  • Being the largest search engine on the internet by the margin Google is means that it's the largest search engine for nearly EVERY category. Still, some engines were created for torrents, and Google wasn't.

    • Re:Technicalities (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:27PM (#35505972)

      In any event, I don't think "But he's doing it too!" has ever been considered a valid legal defense.

      • Re:Technicalities (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:48PM (#35506280) Journal

        It should be. Equal protection under the law and all that. Selective enforcement of laws is a major vector for corruption.

      • But if you can show that setting a precedent of "indexing being infringement" the courts may realize they are about to outlaw search engines in general. Not only does this make the judge think twice, but shines a bit of a light on Google prodding them to possible speak up on your behalf before it becomes THEIR problem as well.

        It's actually a neat tactic once you think it through.
      • by anyGould (1295481)

        Isn't it a defense (albeit a weaker one) against copyright and trademark claims? If they can show that Google is getting a free pass, then it could be parlayed into a claim that the copyright holders aren't properly defending their claims?

        I suspect they're not doing it to convince the judge/jury, as they are to force Google to get involved (since G probably doesn't want any sort of precedent around search result blacklisting.)

      • It seems like it should be when your judgments are based on precedence (in the US). I can sue a few poor companies for something and win because they don't have the money to defend themselves and then once I have a few easy wins under my belt, then I can go after the guys with bigger pockets because they judges are more likely to weigh the existing precedent in my favor than they would have been with a blank slate.
      • by slazzy (864185)
        Actually for another intellectual property type, trademarks, that is an important argument when trademarks become common names and no longer protected.
    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      >>>some engines were created for torrents

      Arresting me because my search engine scours & provides links to,, et cetera..... makes as little sense as arresting me because I possess photos of murder victims.

      I didn't commit the crime. THEY committed the crime. I'm not liable for the acts of others.

      Next I suppose you'll arrest google for providing links to child porn (nudist websites).

      • by Unkyjar (1148699)

        Next I suppose you'll arrest google for providing links to child porn (nudist websites).

        Now that's just silly. You can't arrest a company... I mean, where will you put the handcuffs?

      • I give that argument a roughly 0% chance of success in court.

        Seriously, at some point you (well, IsoHunt) have to be pragmatic and deal with the world / legal system as it actually is, not as they'd like it to be.

      • by c6gunner (950153)

        Nudism isn't child-porn.

        • by CastrTroy (595695)
          Depends on who's looking at it. I'm pretty sure if you had a stash of 15,000 nudist photos on your computer, they could convict you of child pornography possession.
        • by lgw (121541)

          While I think it's pretty silly that any sort of nudism is sort of automatically considered porn, there's a pedophile witch hunt on in America, and people have been convicted for possesion of child porn even for having non-nude pictures of children. I'm not sure what the legal arguments were, but I suspect they were something like "he looks like a pedophile, get a rope". I sure as Hell wouldn't want anything to do with any nudism pictures or films in America today.

    • by anyGould (1295481)
      It does bring up a good point - if IsoHunt turned off the search engine, but still had the database exposed to search engines, are they still doing something wrong?
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:25PM (#35505940)

    Real lawyers, and lots of them.

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      They are not real lawyers. They are led by geeks. They evolved. Some pose as IP lawyers. And they have a plan.
      • by gknoy (899301)

        And soon, they will execute that plan!

        Sorry, my kid's been watching too much Bolt.

    • by rawler (1005089)

      And a business besides search engine for pirated content.

  • Is everything related to the internet suddenly lumped in with the Cloud now?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:08PM (#35506556)

    Sounds like the MPAA is suing IsoHunt not Google. What Google is doing doesn't matter as far as this case is concerned; they aren't a party to the case. Maybe the MPAA will go after Google next (not likely).

    This is a typical infringer strategy: tell the court that some one else is doing it and more of it. Hasn't mattered in the past and will not matter in this case. The MPAA gets to choose who it wants to sue and when.

  • There can be no denying that torrents are speech. Torrent files in and of themselves are only contact data.

    The supreme court can rule that giving money to political causes is free speech but publishing the phone number of a hooker isn't?

  • Sue Google. I can't wait to watch you and your bullshit case go down in flames faster than the fucking Hindenburg.

  • ...if ISOhunt changed their search engine for a day, so that any searches were just forwarded to google with a filetype:torrent string appended?

    It wouldn't make any difference to the legal case of course, which is more about ISOhunt being poor and accessible (and therefore prosecutable), unlike google. It'll also show users what magic incantations they need to mutter if/when torrent aggregators are closed, and maybe then we'll see MPAA vs. Google.

    I don't torrent myself, I just buy lots of DVD's (except when

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @03:01PM (#35507180)

    Compare the ratio of links to pirated material on Google to that on IsoHunt. IsoHunt loses.

    Compare the response of Google to a takedown request to that of IsoHunt. IsoHunt loses.

    Google makes at least a minimal attempt at not being a part of the distribution chain, IsoHunt on the other hand makes no attempt. IsoHunt loses.

    You can argue that IsoHunt isn't doing anything wrong all you want, and you'll be a part of the small minority of idiots who think they'll win this battle. Good luck with that.

    • by gknoy (899301)

      - Google has all of the pirated links, Isohunt only has some of them. ;)
      - I thought IsoHunt had been fairly quick on takedowns when requested? I might be mixing them up with someone else.

  • Use Google to search for torrent files. Thanks for the heads up. :) Honestly though Torrentz have jumped the shark so to speak. Most people I know have moved on to other means of file sharing. Anytime I download a torrent file I get a nasty email from my ISP stating that I was flagged for copyright infringement by a third party.
    [rant]As for the people at isoHunt I wish them well and hope they aren't treated to badly. I say that because the powers that be seem to really over react to what they were doing. I
    • Use Google to search for torrent files. Thanks for the heads up. :) Honestly though Torrentz have jumped the shark so to speak. Most people I know have moved on to other means of file sharing. Anytime I download a torrent file I get a nasty email from my ISP stating that I was flagged for copyright infringement by a third party.

      Public trackers are just that: public trackers. Your IP will be listed as a leecher/seeder.

      Protip: don't forget about encryption.

Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke