The BitTorrent protocol's wide use for copyright infringement has led to legal issues with BitTorrent. The technology itself is perfectly legal, but it has been debated if its implementation in connection with copyrighted material or otherwise illegal material makes the issuer of the BitTorrent file, as opposed to that of the copyrighted material itself, liable as an accomplice or an infringing party. A BitTorrent file can be seen as a hyperlink or very specific instruction of how to obtain something on the internet, including illegal or copyrighted content. The degree of illegality varies, but, in general, court decisions in various nations deem it illegal. Due to the nature of the internet, it is possible to host the BitTorrent file in areas where it is not illegal - making it more an issue if ISPs can provide access there and if anyone can access that file (or the illegal content), which again would vary by jurisdictions.
Contents |
BitTorrent trackers have been subjected to raids and shutdowns due to claims of copyright infringement. BitTorrent metafiles do not store copyrighted data, so it has been claimed that BitTorrent trackers, which only store and track the metafiles, must therefore be legal even if sharing the data in question would be considered a violation of copyright.[1] Despite this claim, there has been tremendous legal pressure, usually on behalf of the MPAA and RIAA and similar organizations around the world, to shut down numerous BitTorrent trackers.
In December 2004, the Finnish police raided a major BitTorrent site, Finreactor.[2][3] Seven system administrators and four others were ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of euros in damages. The defendants appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Finland, but did not succeed in getting the verdict overturned.[4] Two other defendants were acquitted by reason of being underage at the time, but they are being held liable for legal fees and compensation for illegal distribution ranging up to 60,000 euros. The court set their fine at 10% of the retail price of products distributed.[5]
Suprnova.org, one of the most popular early BitTorrent sites, closed in December 2004, purportedly due to the pressure felt by Sloncek, the founder and administrator of the site. In December 2004, Sloncek revealed that the Suprnova computer servers had in fact been confiscated by Slovenian authorities.[6]
LokiTorrent closed down soon after Suprnova. Allegedly, after threats from the MPAA, Edward Webber (known as 'lowkee'), webmaster of the site, was ordered by the court to pay a fine and supply the MPAA with logs (the IP addresses of visitors).[7] Webber, in the weeks following his receipt of the subpoena, began a fundraising campaign to pay legal fees in a legal battle against the MPAA. Webber raised approximately US$45,000 through a PayPal-based donation system. Following the agreement, the MPAA changed the LokiTorrent website to display a message intended to discourage filesharers from downloading illegal content.[7][8] Webber did not comment on this change.
On May 25, 2005, the popular BitTorrent website EliteTorrents.org was shut down by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. At first it was thought that a malicious hacker had gained control of the website, but it was soon discovered that the website had been taken over by the US government. Ten search warrants relating to members of the website were executed.[9] Six admins of the EliteTorrents.org website pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and criminal copyright infringement of a pre-commercial release work.[10] Punishments handed out included jail time, house arrest, and fines.[11] Jail time could be passed down because, unlike many other file sharing cases involving individuals, criminal law (not just civil law) was involved - specifically, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.[11]
On October 24, 2005, a 38-year-old Hong Kong BitTorrent user Chan Nai-ming (陳乃明), using the handle 古惑天皇 Lit. The master of cunning, (the magistrate referred to him as Big Crook) allegedly distributed the three movies Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality in violation of copyright, subsequently uploading the torrent file to a newsgroup. He was convicted of breaching the copyright ordinance, Chapter 528 of Hong Kong law.[12] The magistrate remarked that Chan's act caused significant damage to the interest of copyright holders. He was released on bail for HK$5,000, awaiting a sentencing hearing, though the magistrate himself admitted the difficulty of determining how he should be sentenced due to the lack of precedent for such a case. On November 7, 2005, he was sentenced to jail for three months but was immediately granted bail pending an appeal to the High Court.[13] The appeal was dismissed by the Court of First Instance on 12 December 2006 and Chan was jailed immediately. On 3 January 2007, he was bailed pending appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on 9 May 2007.
In June 2006, the popular website Newnova.org, an exact replicate of Supernova, was also subject to closure.
The Pirate Bay torrent website, formed by a Swedish anti-copyright group, is notorious for the "legal" section[1] of its website in which letters and replies on the subject of alleged copyright infringements are publicly displayed. On May 31, 2006, The Pirate Bay's servers in Sweden were raided by Swedish police on allegations by the MPAA of copyright infringement.[14] The Pirate Bay was back online in less than 72 hours, and returned to Sweden, accompanied by public and media backlash against the Swedish Government's actions.[15] A film, Steal This Film (Stockholm, Summer 2006), relating to these incidents has been produced.[16] On April 17, 2009, as a result of the trial following the 2006 raid, the site's four owners were sentenced to one year of jail time each and to collectively pay 30 million SEK in damages to rights owners. All the defendants have appealed, and the sentences have been suspended pending the appeal.
On May 29, 2007, A federal judge ordered TorrentSpy, a torrent website, to begin monitoring its users' activities and to submit these logs to the Motion Picture Association of America. TorrentSpy's attorney, Ira Rothken, has stated that TorrentSpy would likely turn off access to U.S. users before it started monitoring anyone, since such monitoring is in violation of TorrentSpy's own privacy policy.
HBO, in an effort to combat the distribution of its programming on BitTorrent networks, has sent cease and desist letters to the Internet Service Providers of BitTorrent users. Many users have reported receiving letters from their ISP's that threatened to cut off their internet service if the alleged infringement continues.[17] HBO, unlike the RIAA, has not been reported to have filed suit against anyone for sharing files as of April 2007. On the other hand, in 2005 HBO began "poisoning" torrents of its show Rome, by providing bad chunks of data to clients.[18]
In Singapore, anime distributor Odex, has been actively tracking down and sending legal threats against Internet users in Singapore since 2007. These Internet users have allegedly downloaded fansubbed anime via the BitTorrent network. Court orders on ISPs to reveal subscribers' personal information have been ruled in Odex's favor, leading to several downloaders receiving letters of legal threat from Odex and subsequently pursuing out-of-court settlements for at least S$3,000 (US$2,000) per person, the youngest person being 9 years old.[19][20] These actions were considered controversial by the local anime community and have attracted criticisms towards the company, as they are seen by fans as heavy-handed.[21]
A woman and a man were caught illegally uploading with BT in September 2008 and April 2009 respectively in Hong Kong. They are the second and third person caught in the city.[22][23]
Beginning in early 2010, the US Copyright Group, acting on behalf of several independent movie makers, has obtained the IP addresses of BitTorrent users allegedly downloading specific movies. The group then sued these users, in order to obtain subpoenas forcing ISPs to reveal the users' true identities. The group then sent out settlement offers in the $1,000-$3,000 range. About 16,200 lawsuits were filed between March and September 2010.[24]
In 2011, United States courts began determining the legality of suits brought against hundreds or thousands of BitTorrent users simultaneously, with a suit against 5,000 IP addresses being dismissed[25], as well as smaller suits such as Pacific Century International, Ltd. v. Does that dismissed cases against over 100 IP addresses tied to disseminating copyrighted works.
On November 23, 2005, the Motion Picture Association of America and BitTorrent Inc. CEO Bram Cohen, signed a deal they hoped would reduce the number of unlicensed copies available through the BitTorrent.com search engine ran by BitTorrent, Inc. It meant BitTorrent.com had to remove any links to unlicensed copies of films made by seven of Hollywood's major movie studios. As it covered only the BitTorrent.com website, it is unclear what overall effect this has had on copyright infringement.[26]
A number of other notable search engines have also voluntarily self-censored restrictively licensed content from their results, or have become "content distribution"-only search engines. In the case of Mininova, it announced that it would only allow for freely licensed content (especially free content distributed by its author under a Creative Commons license) to be indexed after November 2009, resulting in the immediate removal of a majority portion of Mininova's search returns from view or use.
In June 2011, Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network filed a lawsuit at a U.S. District Court against BitTorrent Inc. for infringing a patent applied for in April 1999.[27][28]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
