+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted June 2, 2011 Subscriber¹ Share Posted June 2, 2011 A French Court of Appeal has just upheld the sentencing of an administrator of two BitTorrent-related sites. Despite no evidence being presented that money was made from the sites through advertising as claimed ? or even that any infringements had occurred ? the admin now faces a $29,000 payout. Bizarrely, the Court decided that having the word ?torrent? in his sites? URLs showed that he knew about infringements.Following a complaint by the French rightsholder group SACEM, in June 2008 police arrested Blackistef, the administrator of two BitTorrent related sites; Torrentnews.net, a links forum and Torrent-public-center.com, a meta-search engine. ?I spent a day like a thief, locked in their cells filled with **** and even showered on the walls,? said Blackistef at the time. ?A hole in the ground for a toilet (which you can not flush) and a single concrete bench.? ?There was an indescribable smell; the guys wrote their name on the walls with **** mixed with the remains of prison food. Even the SPCA [society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] cages are cleaner and more humane!? he continued. A year later in June 2009, Blackistef lost his case and was ordered by a court to pay SACEM 17,000 euros ($24,500) in damages plus costs. In addition Blackistef was given a four month suspended jail sentence. He immediately appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal heard the case last month and upheld the decision of the original court, handing down the jail sentence plus damages and costs totalling some 20,000 euros ($29,000). The Court rejected Blackistef?s defense that as a service provider or intermediary he should not be held responsible for material posted by users provided he complied with takedown requests. Instead the court took into account their belief that Blackistef had ?knowledge of wrongful acts.? Blackistef has since listed a number of important points from the trial, notably that claims from SACEM that he was making money from advertising on the site were incorrect. The banner ads complained about by SACEM were actually member signatures and the site had no advertising income at all. But perhaps more worrying are the revelations from court papers just obtained by French news outlet Numerama. ?The decision gives the impression of having been guided more by the desire to punish a state of mind, rather than by the strict application of the law or a rigorous analysis of the allegations,? editor Guillaume Champeau explains. The papers include a statement from the Court which declares that ?..the names of these sites [when they include the word 'torrent'] encourage illegal activity. Torrent sites are accessed by users of the BitTorrent protocol which has a main, if not unique purpose, of enabling downloading of copyright protected works.? In a nutshell, having the word ?torrent? in a domain name can be reason enough to presume bad intentions. In respect of meta-search engine Torrent-public-center.com, the Court said that since it searched other sites such as Mininova, The Pirate Bay and isoHunt, this search engine was one dedicated to ?unlawful downloading?. Furthermore, Champeau notes that the Court was unable to establish from the evidence provided by SACEM that any unlawful downloads had occurred as a result of the sites? existence. Instead the Court decided to be rather more general in stating that Blackistef ?created Internet sites contributing to the underground economy? and his actions ?contributed to the destabilization of the economy of artistic creation? and must therefore be punished. ?The court clearly sided with SACEM with this ruling, ignoring all the defendant arguments,? Champeau told TorrentFreak. ?It either did not fully understand the facts and misinterpreted the law that should have applied at least for the search engine part, or the court did it on purpose because it wanted the man sentenced so that it wouldn?t create a void other sites could enter into.? Nevertheless, Blackistef says he has no money left to continue fighting SACEM and has now accepted his fate. ?The term ?justice is for the rich? is unfortunately not a myth,? he concludes. Source: TorrentFreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisp Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 You should be sued for using such a bad word in your thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm sure all the torrents on his page were Linux distros and open source software. I am outraged! /s I think this case goes a bit too far, but I think it also sends a clear message: "We are not idiots." Does anyone here seriously think that torrent websites are as popular as they are because everyone loves going there for Linux? No, whether he admits it or not, he makes money from pirated songs, movies, TV shows, programs...etc. He has tons of ads on his website. Unless he is just being a good friend and posting those ads for free, I'm sure he is getting a revenue stream. Sure, he complies when he gets a take down notices, but let's not be stupid here, we all know what he is doing at his site and where his money is made. We can defend him on principle because, after all, he is not directly uploading pirated materials, but we also all know that he knows what is going on his site. Did he never go on his own website and see people posting movies? Did he never go on his forum and read people discussing how to bypass DRM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbamaris Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Grah, even though "torrent" is widely known for piracy it also has its legitimate uses. Downloading mods for PC games for example. Also, it cuts down on the bandwidth that would normally come from a single server. *sigh* Courts and jurors are most certaintly ignorant of its real purpose and meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Grah, even though "torrent" is widely known for piracy it also has its legitimate uses. Downloading mods for PC games for example. Also, it cuts down on the bandwidth that would normally come from a single server. *sigh* Courts and jurors are most certaintly ignorant of its real purpose and meaning. Just because it has a "legitimate" use doesn't mean juries and judges should be blind as to what it was ACTUALLY used for. I guarantee if the guy's website was only used for torrenting PC game mods or Linux distros or open source software, he would not have been sued. Just going on his site, you can, within 1 or 2 clicks, find pirated materials on his website. Let's not be stupid here people. He was making money off people posting pirated material torrents on his website. It's like someone running a hotel for hookers. Sure, he'll rent to someone who just wants to spend the night, but if he is renting it to hookers by the hour, he knows what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth_criminal1990 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 whether he admits it or not, he makes money from pirated songs, movies, TV shows, programs...etc. He has tons of ads on his website. Doesn't the article say that his sites didn't have any ad revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife Party Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Just because it has a "legitimate" use doesn't mean juries and judges should be blind as to what it was ACTUALLY used for. I guarantee if the guy's website was only used for torrenting PC game mods or Linux distros or open source software, he would not have been sued. Just going on his site, you can, within 1 or 2 clicks, find pirated materials on his website. Let's not be stupid here people. He was making money off people posting pirated material torrents on his website. It's like someone running a hotel for hookers. Sure, he'll rent to someone who just wants to spend the night, but if he is renting it to hookers by the hour, he knows what is going on. (N) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Doesn't the article say that his sites didn't have any ad revenue? No, it said it was never "proven" but that's because you don't have to prove that someone made ad revenue to charge them for copyright infringement. It is a red herring. Just visit his website. Ads are everywhere. I imagine he is not posting ads because he is just a friendly guy. Edit: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/funnyjunk-vs-the-oatmeal.ars Here is an article about why take down notices don't work. The comic that runs The Oatmeal has been getting his comics stolen and posted on Funnyjunk. He has tried to get Funnyjunk to take them down, but users just repost it. Takedown notices only work to some extent. Here's how FunnyJunk.com's business operates:1. Gather funny pictures from around the internet 2. Host them on FunnyJunk.com 3. Slather them in advertising 4. If someone claims copyright infringement, throw your hands up in the air and exclaim "It was our users who uploaded your photos! We had nothing to do with it! We're innocent!" 5. Cash six-figure advertising checks from other artists' stolen material His post concluded, "I realize that trying to police copyright infringement on the internet is like strolling into the Vietnamese jungle circa 1964 and politely asking everyone to use squirt guns. I know that if FunnyJunk disappeared, 50 other clones would pop up to take its place overnight, but I felt I had to say something about what they're doing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@Leo Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 America, **** yeah! :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted June 2, 2011 Veteran Share Posted June 2, 2011 America, **** yeah! :rolleyes: america? did I miss something, I read this article as from france? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirEvan Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 america? did I miss something, I read this article as from france? you silly person you.. It's always Americas fault..even when it's not.... /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaP Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm sure all the torrents on his page were Linux distros and open source software. I am outraged! /s I think this case goes a bit too far, but I think it also sends a clear message: "We are not idiots." Does anyone here seriously think that torrent websites are as popular as they are because everyone loves going there for Linux? No, whether he admits it or not, he makes money from pirated songs, movies, TV shows, programs...etc. He has tons of ads on his website. Unless he is just being a good friend and posting those ads for free, I'm sure he is getting a revenue stream. Sure, he complies when he gets a take down notices, but let's not be stupid here, we all know what he is doing at his site and where his money is made. We can defend him on principle because, after all, he is not directly uploading pirated materials, but we also all know that he knows what is going on his site. Did he never go on his own website and see people posting movies? Did he never go on his forum and read people discussing how to bypass DRM? All gun makers know their guns are used to commit crime. Does it make them liable? no. Ah i forgot gun makers have right normal people don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 In a nutshell, having the word ?torrent? in a domain name can be reason enough to presume bad intentions. In respect of meta-search engine Torrent-public-center.com, the Court said that since it searched other sites such as Mininova, The Pirate Bay and isoHunt, this search engine was one dedicated to ?unlawful downloading?. Anyone else catch the irony in these two lines? None of the three sites (Mininova, Pirate Bay, and isoHunt) mentioned as being evidence that his site was dedicated to "unlawful downloading" have the word "torrent" in their names! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lezard Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Just like saying Tal Ivan in Spanish (rough translation would be that guy Ivan) is evidence that you are referring the the Taliban LOL. My friends and I would joke around on the phone all the time that we were put on a check up list before flight LOL. Well that was 8 years ago tho hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 All gun makers know their guns are used to commit crime. Does it make them liable? no. Ah i forgot gun makers have right normal people don't. Your analogy doesn't make any sense. They aren't suing the manufacturer of the music. They are suing people that are providing a means to circulate illegal copies of the music. If anything, this is like a gun store that is selling illegal weapons. He can't just say "Oh sorry, I didn't realize you can't sell automatic weapons. I just bought them from a vendor." Or maybe a guy that is running a swap meet where he knows people are selling illegal weapons. Furthermore, in the US, it is NOT illegal to have a torrent website. It's not even illegal to have a torrent website dedicated to illegal torrents. I'm just saying there are legitimate reasons why I think it should be. Apparently in France, it is. I say, websites need to have at least some sort of filtering system. It doesn't have to be a perfect filtering system, but something at least. You don't have to be a genius to know that Adobe isn't posting their Photoshop software for free on PirateBay. Come on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted June 2, 2011 Veteran Share Posted June 2, 2011 but I think it also sends a clear message: "We are not idiots."Is it enough to say "We are not idiots" to send someone to prison? From the article I got that the court hadn't actually proven anything. I mean, if his illegal activity is so obvious why can't they very simply prove it? It wouldn't be that hard to track down a torrent download and see what happens with it. "Come on..." is cool and all but justice can't rely on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Is it enough to say "We are not idiots" to send someone to prison? From the article I got that the court hadn't actually proven anything. I mean, if his illegal activity is so obvious why can't they very simply prove it? It wouldn't be that hard to track down a torrent download and see what happens with it. "Come on..." is cool and all but justice can't rely on that. Perhaps you can consider not quoting me out of context. I think this case goes a bit too far, but I think it also sends a clear message: "We are not idiots." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Dash8 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 In a nutshell, having the word ?torrent? in a domain name can be reason enough to presume bad intentions. No, in a nutshell, having the word torrent in a domain name is 99% guaranteed to involve piracy. I think this case goes a bit too far, but I think it also sends a clear message: "We are not idiots." Exactly. Another victory for common sense. All those smartass claims that torrent search engines are for people searching for linux distros disappear into the hot air they came from. We all know exactly what torrent sites and torrent search engines are primarily used for: piracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 No, in a nutshell, having the word torrent in a domain name is 99% guaranteed to involve piracy. And yet, most of the most popular torrent sites for piracy DON'T have "torrent" in their names!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 And yet, most of the most popular torrent sites for piracy DON'T have "torrent" in their names!! If X leads to Y, it doesn't necessarily mean that Z doesn't also lead to Y. In other words, just because the word "torrent" denotes piracy, it doesn't mean other words can't also denote piracy nor does it mean the largest piracy groups need to contain "torrent" in their names. He basically said "Tigers are cats." and your response was "Lions are cats too!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Yes Duke, I'm aware of that, I'm just pointing out the error of always associating one particular term with an activity that doesn't always go together with it. A decade ago, before the popularity of torrents, people could have also said (and did say) the same things about "FTP" or "usenet". And while both of those have significant amounts of piracy as well, they also have legitimate uses (the web site I work for, for example, has us send in content updates via FTP, as do many others). Another example of this type of logic is the fact that Yahoo Groups won't allow you to have a group with the word "nudist" in the title, because at one point it was a popular codeword for pedophile groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Yes Duke, I'm aware of that, I'm just pointing out the error of always associating one particular term with an activity that doesn't always go together with it. A decade ago, before the popularity of torrents, people could have also said (and did say) the same things about "FTP" or "usenet". And while both of those have significant amounts of piracy as well, they also have legitimate uses (the web site I work for, for example, has us send in content updates via FTP, as do many others). Another example of this type of logic is the fact that Yahoo Groups won't allow you to have a group with the word "nudist" in the title, because at one point it was a popular codeword for pedophile groups. I don't think anyone is arguing that "torrent" does not have ANY legitimate use (maybe it's a website for that awful Pontiac Torrent car), but merely the fact that if someone is using a "torrent" website, the vast majority of the time, they are downloading illegal content. Anything can have a legitimate use. There were NASA plans to design a rocket ship that propelled itself by dropping nuclear bombs behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 maybe it's a website for that awful Pontiac Torrent car [OT] Hey, better the Torrent than the even uglier Aztek! [/OT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firey Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 [OT] Hey, better the Torrent than the even uglier Aztek! [/OT] My parents have a Torrent (Suv) and it's actually not that bad at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 [OT] Hey, better the Torrent than the even uglier Aztek! [/OT] My parents have a Torrent (Suv) and it's actually not that bad at all. Ah, I stand corrected. I called it the Torrent, but I was actually picturing the Aztek in my head. My bad! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts