Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshTriplett | Hacker News Reader

Compliance with the DMCA requires removal of infringing content. TPB does not host infringing content. Thus, they're vacuously compliant.

View on HN

How is hosting magnet links that let you download copyrighted material not considered hosting infringing content?

Google host entire books that are still known to be in copyright without getting the author's permission; that doesn't according to the courts count as copyright infringement. But we're expected to think that hosting content metadata is [contributory] copyright infringement?

Gun manufacturers are murderers in such a world.

Just to play devil's advocate, gun sales are regulated in one way or another in many places. Permits, background checks, waiting periods. The pirate bay, in many ways, acts more like a gun runner than a gun manufacturer. They don't create the content, they just make it available and try to skirt regulation through a technicality or even direct non-compliance.

So like the HN darling Uber?

In a very literal way - the copyright to the contents of a particular magnet file is not owned by the DMCA claimant, and distributing that magnet file to others is not a violation of copyright laws.

Since when is metadata considered covered under copyright?

If the metadata in question is used specifically for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material then how should it not be?

You just made searching the internet for an ISBN or employing the Dewey Decimal System illegal. Congrats!

I think you instead meant to imply some sort of intent test. That gets very difficult very quickly. Figuring out how to write the RIAA's perpetual money-machine into law while not destroying section 230 or accidentally banning photocopiers is your next task.

I'm failing to see the connection between magnet links to download copyrighted material and searching for an ISBN.

Magnet links are basically just deterministically computed ISBNs for arbitrary data.

Here is the magnet link for a zero length file.

    magnet:?xt=urn:ed2k:31D6CFE0D16AE931B73C59D7E0C089C0&xl=0&dn=zero_len.fil

How is that different than:

    978-0262510875 "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs - 2nd Edition"

ISBN numbers have identified copyrighted works since 1967.

Because magnet links do not carry the copyright of the files they are supposedly associated with. And third parties not the pirate bay send you the content you do not download it from the pirate bay.

Do you have any precedent that says it's not infringing?

Isohunt and others used similar arguments and lost.

The EU courts have determined, quite rightly, that merely having an link on a website does not equate to piracy.

The EU courts, quite rightly, do not set precedent for US laws like DMCA.

The Pirate Bay operates outside of the US; US law (and the DMCA) does not apply to them.

But PIR, which runs the .ORG registry, does operate in the US, and thus US law applies to them.

Which is an odd scenario, isn't it? A US private firm (the RIAA) applying pressure to a US technical registry for US interests when The Pirate Bay doesn't infringe per the letter of the law, nor resides within the United States.

>The Pirate Bay doesn't infringe per the letter of the law

This is your opinion. So far I haven't seen any US precedent for this, and it's by no means obvious that it's not infringing.

Hey did you know that you can go to pirate bay website and find links to content that may not be legal?

^ Am I obviously infringing as well?

I never said they're obviously infringing. I said they're not obviously non-infringing.

Your comment I would classify as obviously non infringing. Two obvious differences (not the only two): you haven't linked to anything, and you aren't being paid any money for your comment.

Did you know TPB founders have gone to prison for copyright infringement? I think the judge did not feel their actions were "obviously not infringing".

> Your comment I would classify as obviously non infringing. Two obvious differences (not the only two): you haven't linked to anything, and you aren't being paid any money for your comment.

If that's not linking, then the pirate bay doesn't link either. They supply a description and a SHA1. You have to locate the content yourself. You have to locate the people that have the content yourself.

What if TPB didn't have ads?

>What if TPB didn't have ads?

Then it's more complicated, and depends on other distinctions I alluded to above.

Which is a horrible precedent. If any piece of your infrastructure exists in the USA, even another service serving you, you're guilty of whatever they want.

The internet is global. If N. Korea shouldn't be able to extradite you for promoting democracy, the USA shouldn't have any legal power to influence DNS.

The case made against Isohunt was that the overwhelming majority of their index consisted of infringing material and the site was tuned for searching for infringing material.

The situation is kind of like headshops in the US. A headshop is legal if it sells "tobacco related products" but illegal if it sells "pot related products".

Just like headshops, TPB skirts prosecution by being an agnostic tracker despite everyone knowing what it's all about.

>Just like headshops, TPB skirts prosecution by being an agnostic tracker despite everyone knowing what it's all about.

No. Founders of TPB have gone to jail, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial.

People operating online headshops have gone to jail as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Chong#US_vs._Chong

I've seen arguments and precedent in both directions about URLs and similar links; the legal precedent seems unclear, and would likely depend on the facts of an individual case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com