TorrentSpy begins weeding out copyright content
TorrentSpy, the torrent-file search engine accused by Hollywood of aiding copyright violators, plans to remove links from its search results to pirated content using a new filtering system.
FileRights is an automated filtering system created by some of TorrentSpy's founders, including Justin Bunnell, according to a statement released Monday. The technology uses "hash" values to automatically remove links to infringing works from search engines that subscribe to the service.
The move comes as TorrentSpy fights a lawsuit brought against it last year by the major film studios. TorrentSpy suffered a legal blow earlier this month when the judge hearing the case ordered the company to begin tracking user activity.
The privately held company has appealed the decision. Should it lose, Ira Rothken, TorrentSpy's attorney, has said the company would likely shut down access in the U.S. before giving up information about users.
In an interview, Rothken acknowledged that using hash marks to identify copyright content is not foolproof. If a file is altered then the system may not recognize it.
Filtering doesn't necessarily mean an end to the hostilities between Hollywood and the torrent search engines. In 2001, file-sharing system, Napster, launched a filtering system that failed to thwart illegal file sharing enough to satisfy the music industry or the courts. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel called their efforts, which according to some accounts only caught half of the illegal files being shared, "disgraceful." The judge eventually ordered Napster to stay shut down until it could block all infringing materials.
It should be noted that illegal file doesn't occur at TorrentSpy or the other torrent engines. People use these sites to locate torrent files that can be downloaded via the file-sharing program BitTorrent. In the lawsuit filed by the film industry in Feb. 2006, TorrentSpy is accused of being a powerful tool for those who pirate intellectual property.
FileRights works like most video filters. Copyright owners handover information about their films or TV shows and the system detects any files containing unauthorized copies. Links to those files are automatically removed.
Any copyright owner, Web site or search engine is welcome to subscribe to the service for free, according to the company's statement. According to Rothken, one of TorrentSpy's competitors, IsoHunt, has agreed to use the filtering system as well.
"With FileRights we used the community networking power of the Web to automate and aggregate the entire copyright filtration process," Bunnell said. "Torrentspy now uses the FileRights cooperative filtering process to filter search results on its popular search engine."
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Why do the copyright owners think that an automated system will be the answer to this?
What they should be doing is personally monitoring these sites and respectfully requesting the content be removed by the aggregator (sp?).
Forcing a company to implement a faulty (automatic) filtering system on such a dynamic exchange service is probably the WORSE thing you can do because, as high-def DVD copy protection has shown, there will be adaptations to it that will nullify its purpose and use.
It's just plain stupid and a big waste of time.
This said, I still hate automated filters... or filters in general.
You see, this isn't about copyrights: this is about controlling distribution. The copyright issue is a red herring. Copyright owners down want us to stop downloading; they want us to download FROM THEM ... not some third party competitor.
It's like prohibition: he who control distribution is King.
music, and books to be free, but why would I write a book if it is
just going to get copied for free (unless I've made a killing on
options from tech companies like Mr. Lessig, Esq. and don't
need the money. He's better than Deridas who sues anyone who
appropriates his work, but if the creative commons licensing
were not an essential part of the cult of Lessig you can rest
assured he would use traditional copyright).
As for defeatable filtration systems. Once somebody has
deliberately altered media content to fake out the filtering
system two things come into play: 1. You have a much easier
time convincing a judge or jury that the perpetrator knew what
they were doing was illegal and 2. Courts have historically given
artists some protection of their work from alteration (So you
can't buy a big Jackson Pollock and cut it into six "undiscovered"
small ones).
Clearly the aggregators of this type of content have been
benefiting materially from copyright infringers, though they
claim immunity under DCMA. As an aggregator there is
protection in making a good faith effort to make posting of
copyrighted material difficult. Particularly given the tight knit
community of users that generally starts with friends of the
programmers, I think adding filtration protects the principals of
the business from allegation of racketeering, collusion with
infringers, and enterprise corruption.
As far as forcing the copyright holders to monitor sites, the
status quo today: That is a very expensive proposition. If you
have a catalog of 30,000 sound recordings, you have a lot of
work to protect those recordings (remember, under 10% of CDs
ever break even, movies and music are actually a risky business).
Ultimately the cost of protecting copyright will be passed on to
consumers.
As a matter of fact late last year the Department of Justice tried to increase Internet Service Provider data retention policies to 2 years in order to combat this as said records would be available for the DoJ to subpoena the ISP for to investigate said customer.
Not entirely a pleasant thought when it comes to having 2 years worth of data on your internet activities stored away if you participate in any type of eCommerce.
- This is pathetic.
- by ethana2 June 25, 2007 1:12 PM PDT
- Free culture would be a heck of a lot simpler.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- Did you forget that this is a capitalist society?
- by BrandonEubanks June 25, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
- Seriously, did you forget? People make copyrighted material to
-
-
(10 Comments)If we get enough people making good stuff under creative commons, like all the awsome code we have under the gpl, we won't need the MaFIAA any more than I now need Microsoft. I'd like to see that day.
I don't think we can stop them from being fascist about the distribution of their enslaved information, so I propose we revolt. Seriously- if everyone who makes media for free anyway used the cc license, it could all be collected together on a completely legal site, and once stuff got awesome enough, it would effectively force the industry to be reasonable or, well, die. I'm fine with either.
make money. As much as I love BitTorrent, I can not argue with
the basic premise that a person should be paid for their work if
they so desire. Now, think about the resources required to make
a descent movie that most of the people (or even a significant
minority) would like to see. There is no way that the open
source model as it is today could be applied to make a
production quality movie. Now, lets look at the open source's
successes. We have Linux. Well, that is not doing great in the
grand scheme of things. And it took what 15 years to get where
it is now. Under a corporate model, there would have been a
much more focused approach that would have produced a
comparable product much quicker. Now, don't interpret this as
an anti-open source post because it is not. Open source
projects are great piece of the computer culture and a necessary
part but, that model can not be applied to everything.