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."

[`WarpKat]

This is what I fail to understand.

"In an interview, Rothken acknowledged that using hash marks to identify content is not foolproof. If a file is altered then the system may not recognize it."<br /><br />Why do the copyright owners think that an automated system will be the answer to this?<br /><br />What they should be doing is personally monitoring these sites and respectfully requesting the content be removed by the aggregator (sp?).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It's just plain stupid and a big waste of time.

[limefan913]

Yes, but...

The companies don't always want to do this, and you may not realize just how much stuff is on a BitTorrent tracker. There is access to tens of thousands of copyrighted products.<br /><br />This said, I still hate automated filters... or filters in general.

[Mousefinger]

They WANT Them To Fail

The copyright owners don't want these automated systems to work. That's why they're flawed. They want them to fail, so that they can use the courts to shut down these sites once these flawed systems don't work. They can point at a site like TorrentSpy and say, "see, they're still not complying to the law.".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It's like prohibition: he who control distribution is King.

[wylbur]

oi oi

Gosh, everybody hates copyright. Everybody wants movies, <br />music, and books to be free, but why would I write a book if it is <br />just going to get copied for free (unless I've made a killing on <br />options from tech companies like Mr. Lessig, Esq. and don't <br />need the money. He's better than Deridas who sues anyone who <br />appropriates his work, but if the creative commons licensing <br />were not an essential part of the cult of Lessig you can rest <br />assured he would use traditional copyright).<br /><br />As for defeatable filtration systems. Once somebody has <br />deliberately altered media content to fake out the filtering <br />system two things come into play: 1. You have a much easier <br />time convincing a judge or jury that the perpetrator knew what <br />they were doing was illegal and 2. Courts have historically given <br />artists some protection of their work from alteration (So you <br />can't buy a big Jackson Pollock and cut it into six "undiscovered" <br />small ones).<br /><br />Clearly the aggregators of this type of content have been <br />benefiting materially from copyright infringers, though they <br />claim immunity under DCMA. As an aggregator there is <br />protection in making a good faith effort to make posting of <br />copyrighted material difficult. Particularly given the tight knit <br />community of users that generally starts with friends of the <br />programmers, I think adding filtration protects the principals of <br />the business from allegation of racketeering, collusion with <br />infringers, and enterprise corruption.<br /><br />As far as forcing the copyright holders to monitor sites, the <br />status quo today: That is a very expensive proposition. If you <br />have a catalog of 30,000 sound recordings, you have a lot of <br />work to protect those recordings (remember, under 10% of CDs <br />ever break even, movies and music are actually a risky business). <br />Ultimately the cost of protecting copyright will be passed on to <br />consumers.

[ljfordman]

Simply Amazing

I really get such a kick on how so many resources are being used to stop someone from wasting hours downloading poor quality copywrited material instead of stopping the rampant porn being distributed every day. If even half of these resources are redirected to limiting the kiddie porn and violent filth it would be a benefit to society. I'd rather see some kid spend 6 hours trying to download a pirated cartoon movie instead of being blasted on the screen with porn links.

[opendev]

Would Have To Agree

I would have to agree but the war the MPAA and RIAA are waging on piracy is not inhibiting anyone from addressing porn or other vile content distributed through P2P networks or the internet.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[alexgieg]

Alternative

All hail our new ThePirateBay.org overlords.

[ethana2]

This is pathetic.

Free culture would be a heck of a lot simpler.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[BrandonEubanks]

Did you forget that this is a capitalist society?

Seriously, did you forget? People make copyrighted material to <br />make money. As much as I love BitTorrent, I can not argue with <br />the basic premise that a person should be paid for their work if <br />they so desire. Now, think about the resources required to make <br />a descent movie that most of the people (or even a significant <br />minority) would like to see. There is no way that the open <br />source model as it is today could be applied to make a <br />production quality movie. Now, lets look at the open source's <br />successes. We have Linux. Well, that is not doing great in the <br />grand scheme of things. And it took what 15 years to get where <br />it is now. Under a corporate model, there would have been a <br />much more focused approach that would have produced a <br />comparable product much quicker. Now, don't interpret this as <br />an anti-open source post because it is not. Open source <br />projects are great piece of the computer culture and a necessary <br />part but, that model can not be applied to everything.