Slashdot Log In
Bram Cohen to Release BitTorrent Search Engine
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon May 23, 2005 01:01 PM
from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
AI Playground writes "Within two weeks, a BitTorrent search engine will be available at BitTorrent.com. From the Wired News article: 'Bram Cohen and a small cadre of developers and entrepreneurs are in the final stage of launching an advertising-supported search engine dedicated to cataloging and indexing the thousands of movies, music tracks, software programs and other files for download over Cohen's popular BitTorrent protocol.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bram Cohen to Release BitTorrent Search Engine
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 420 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Google isn't enough! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.palal.net/)
Re:Google isn't enough! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google isn't enough! (Score:5, Informative)
They're going to name it... (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.keypad.org/)
Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://opengameconsole.org/ | Last Journal: Friday July 08 2005, @02:58PM)
Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people said this sort of thing when DeCSS hit. To sum up:
Cat's out of the bag, and
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
That is
There's nothing anyone can do about it anymore. He's not fooling anyone. Dude obviously needs to eat, and he's making a sponsored search engine. All I can say is "kaching".
Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. (Score:5, Funny)
Is this another damned KDE utility? Don't we already have enough caching utilities?
-Jam
Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.spinningatom.com/)
Uploading music from within a country where that is outlawed seems to be fair game for legal action now (although countries where a fee is paid on blank media have a fairly strong case for to say they've already paid) and it's been that way for some time.
More recently sites like Suprnova and BTefnet, who provide no copyrighted content but do provide information on where to get it in the form of trackers, have been subject to successful legal action.
This search engine will now provide no copyrighted content. It will not tell users where to get copyrighted content. It will (presumably) tell users where to get information (.torrent files and their associated trackers) on where to get copyrighted content. Is this enough for a case? I'm really not sure it is.
Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.wuputah.com/)
No, they've been subjected to legal blackmail, i.e.,"shut down the site or we'll sue you for $XXX,000." There has not yet even been a lawsuit of copyright infringement against an individual in the US. (IANAL, but at least with respect to "modern" copyright infringement, i.e. sharing via P2P, I believe I am correct.) And until someone significantly rich is threatened with a lawsuit, we probably won't see one.
Maybe you call this "successful legal action." I call it bullying. Give me your milk money or I'll beat you up.
Re:RIAA to release lawsuit in two weeks. (Score:4, Funny)
(http://lefttochance.com/)
bo
Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/~Spy+der+Mann/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 15, @12:57AM)
So the search engine will actually become a benefit for the RIAA. Which I'm perfectly OK with, since Cohen never intended BT to be a pirate tool.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
So the search engine will actually become a benefit for the RIAA. Which I'm perfectly OK with, since Cohen never intended BT to be a pirate tool.
I'm firmly in this camp here. For instance, downloading a copy of ROTS is patently illegal. Ditto for the rest of the **AA stuffs.
If, with this 'search engine', the **AA folks actually have a better tool to be used to go after the infringers, and it leads to a general cleaning up of the currant situation by virtue of the takedown notices that sites that do have the material will receive, and the filing of suits for a *reasonable* level of damages against the receivers of such material, then I see this as a net positive development.
BTW, my view of reasonable, provided the receiver hasn't passed on any further copies, is no more than 10 times the cost of a theater ticket to see the show, times the number of people living in that household.
That, and court costs, but no attorneys fees. Costs will probably exceed the damages that **AA will recover, and it will send a strong enough message to the average person, but it will not be a significant item in the **AA members bottom line. Net losses could well eat any profits from doing the civil suit, so it turns into a CODB for them, and something to minimize.
OTOH, the takedown notice should be delivered in the form of a site-wide machine seizure, then followed up with a civil suit, based on the forensic data recoverable from the site that would give a good picture of how many times it was downloaded from that site. That would often lead to a net profit making it a worthwhile item on the quarterly report. This of course mixes the criminal and civil aspects, so its not that simple. Really, it should be, but combining that would put a lot of expensive legal people on the bread lines so the chances of that happening are somewhere between zip and point double ought (excrement).
However, if the **AA make the mistake of going after the program itself, then I would hope the courts have sense enough to toss it out. That however, would appear to depend on how many judges they have on a leash, and what the leash is made of.
The program has the potential to do much good, and I cannot see that true justice is being served in any venue that attempts to control 100% of its use.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
And in related news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't Bram Cohen see this coming?
Slashdot May 24th 2005 (Score:4, Funny)
The mysterious letters 'RIAA' An 'MPAA' were found branded on his still quivering bottom.
Re:Slashdot May 24th 2005 (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday March 13 2007, @02:39PM)
Re:Wonderful idea (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
Nonsense. With Napster the problem was that it was a device for exchanging illegal content. The judge found that the small amount of legal content was nothing more than an excuse to allow for illegal wares.
In the case of BitTorrent, it has a LOT of uses that are perfectly legal. That is what this search engine is targetting. Want the entire Mozilla source tarball? BitTorrent it. Trying to get the latest 180MB release of Privateer Remake? [solsector.net] BitTorrent it. OpenOffice, Mozilla, FreeBSD, Linux, America's Army, Doom III demo, Star Wars Fan Films, Star Trek New Missions videos, the list just goes on and on. BitTorrent is a response to the ever growing size of these files more than a method of distributing illegal wares. It just happens to work well for the illegal stuff as well.
The result is that a judge will no more condemn it than he would condemn the entire Internet.
Re:Wonderful idea (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
Indeed. Although one has to wonder if it wouldn't become a feedback loop? i.e. As torrents become more accessable, it will probably encourage some types of content creators to use it. Which would only lead to more tools (perhaps a built in Torrent download manager in Mozilla?) which would then encourage even more content. If things do look bleak at first, it may be a very short time before they don't.
Re:Wonderful idea (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://etherplex.org/)
I think Bram is going to seek the same protections most search engines enjoy. No doubt if a suit came out, he would argue that he is only linking to files that link to peers. This is no more illegal than the "filetype:torrent" option on Google, and that has never been challenged. It would essentially be akin to outlawing
Re:Wonderful idea (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.sdonag.plus.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday June 07 2006, @04:05AM)
Sue Me Please (Score:4, Insightful)
As cool as this might be... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.marnhinn.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 14 2006, @04:55PM)
It's a good idea, and probably going to be a nice piece of software... but right now is probably about the worst time you can release something like this.
Re:Nice Troll, Wired News (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.davidbokser.com/)
Already been done? (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday February 25 2006, @11:02PM)
Second: Torrentsearch.us [torrentsearch.us]
this site already indexes torrents and even has an option to search multiple torrent sites @ once. (beware the enormous java ad)
torrent searches (Score:3, Informative)
Any other good ones out there?
I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
(http://datadrivendesign.com/)
How's he dealing with the legal issues? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.gamerspre...tasy_XII_Walkthrough)
IANAL (which for years I thought means "I am ANAL", but that's neither here nor there), but Usenet folks can get away with downloading since downloading copyrighted material is not technically illegal - but uploading, or, probably more accurately, distributing copyrighted material without the consent of the intellectual property owner is. So Usenet folks can download Episode III (though why they would is beyond my ken) without fear of lawsuits, but Bittorrent folks, from the second they activate the torrent and upload a packet to someone else, can be considered a distributer under the eyes of the law.
Which is why web sites such as Suprnova.org are now out of business - MPAA came a callin' with their trucks full o' lawyers claiming that giving people access and hosting torrent files is itself a violation of copyright distribution. I guess if Mr. Cohen doesn't host the files himself but merely links to where the files may be found, he could wiggle through that legal loophole.
Either way, good luck - I see a lot of good use for Bittorrent as a method of distributing large files for the masses such as Podcasts or the eventual Video Podcasts that are now popping up, perhaps even as a way to protect against slashdotting (just build bittorrent into web servers and form "unions" to spread the bandwidth or something like this), but I'm not so confident that such as business venture will work out without some legal challenges (whether appropriate or merely standard M/R/IAA "death by lawsuit" tactics).
Kevin Poulsen of the Watchman book? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.linuxkungfu.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday May 18 2005, @01:44PM)
.Torrent distribution via Usenet? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://malamas.com/)
Sinking feeling (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.theninhotline.net/)
I don't know how it will be justified yet, but it seems like this is exactly what needs to be done to get the lawsuit ball rolling.
This should be interesting to watch unfold... (Score:3, Interesting)
This creates something that BitTorrent has until now lacked, which is a centralized node to target....But Navin isn't worried -- because the new search engine indexes every torrent it can find without human intervention, the company can't be held liable for results that happen to point to infringing content, he says. Lemley says that's probably right, at least as a matter of law: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides safe harbor for "information location tools" if administrators promptly remove links to infringing content upon notice by the copyright holder."
Also doe anyone have any technical details on how this works. I mean how do you index a torrent automatically. i.e. If I start a torrent how will the search enginer know?
Re:This should be interesting to watch unfold... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 12 2006, @03:31PM)
For example, if I want to download the latest slackware distro via BitTorrent, I grab the torrent file from slackware.com, and can go knock myself out.
The same applies for any other torrent files... just download them from the source. If the thing is truly freely redistributable, finding that source should be fairly simple... probably can even be done with google if one is genuinely unsure.
It's already live! (Score:5, Informative)
Why is a torrent search engine required? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 12 2006, @03:31PM)
Re:Why is a torrent search engine required? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://etherplex.org/)
Wait, what?
Search != Napster (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://alexvalentine.org/ | Last Journal: Friday January 21 2005, @01:42PM)
The MPAA has maneuvered to get some torrent sites pulled offline, almost all of the sites are places where users publish content to the site manually.(PUSH) A search engine pulling content from existing locations (PULL) is a completely different type of system.
In the future you'll be able to torrent your brain (Score:4, Funny)
Categorized results? (Score:5, Funny)
A search engine is a decent idea, but if you can't find your files already, you aren't doing something right. I'm not sure BitTorrent is the kind of thing that should be catering to the dumb computer user. Part of the reason it hasn't been locked down totally is because the masses haven't figured it out. Make it as easy to use as Napster, and it will be shutdown as fast as possible.
Poor little MPAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.thepickupartist.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 11 2005, @04:44PM)
I don't think anybody feels sorry for the MPAA. The fact that they had the balls to use "Sith" as an example was both moronic and ironic. I mean, Sith went on to have the 2nd most profitable opening EVER. [cnn.com] How do they have the balls to keep making these claims that bittorrent is hurting them?
Double edged sword? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or instead they could invest in good stories, believable plots, decent actors, cheaper popcorn, to attract people in cinemas.
Who am I kidding.
I just saw XXX-2 and my brain is still recuperating.
RIAA/MPAA (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.windycitymike.com/)
Does anyone see the irony here? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.plkr.org/)
As contradictory to the "Cause" as this may seem, doesn't anyone see that Bram is probably doing this because the RIAA/MPAA and other major industries are blaming his project, a project that produces a protocol, for the rampant copyright infringement on the Internet?
The irony here in recent news is that the RIAA/MPAA are directly blaming BitTorrent for the Star Wars EP3 leak, but its been repeatedly shown that the leaked copy came from inside, and was released before the movie hit the public.
...and somehow BitTorrent is to blame?
Are we blaming Boeing for the 9/11 tragedy too? Or blaming Kabar for making high-quality blades, because someone killed with one?
This is ridiculous, and I personally applaud Bram's efforts here to absolutely saturate the mainstream media and dark corners of the Internet with as much media as possible, using his legitimate tool. I personally don't care for any of the copyrighted dreck on television or the radio these days, but others might.
Also, whenever you can, please keep correcting people who regard this as "piracy", "stealing" or "theft". It is nothing of the sort. It is "copyright infringement", plain and simple. If I "steal" your bicycle, I have deprived you of something you previously owned, which I now posess. Making digitally-perfect copies of a work is not "stealing" or "theft", though it is very much illegal in most countries.
You can't steal profits that weren't already earned. You can't steal "projected" profits. Keep up the pressure on these companies who continue to misunderstand the terms they're spewing in public. There's a certain Heinekin commercial that is grossly misrepresenting the nature of copyright infringement.
I corrected a Wall Street Journal reporter for a front-page article in the Marketplace section of the dead-tree version for promoting the "sharing of music" by burning copies of music and handing it out.
He wrote a story that included how some woman (which he named), was bored with the looping music playing in her resort in the Caribbean islands and decided to use her laptop, complete with burner, to burn several CDs of her favorite music to give to the resort to play instead. He was promoting the "advance of technology" for "enabling" people to do these things. This is disgusting.
THIS is where we need to start directing our angst... at the mainstream media misrepresenting these technologies.
Re:Does anyone see the irony here? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.hansprestige.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 14, @04:25PM)
Hmm... nope, you're gonna have to explain this alleged vast difference, chief.
If I give you a copy of The Incredible Hulk, you might say "god, this sucks" and decide not to buy a ticket or a DVD. OTOH, if *I* watch The Incredible Hulk, I might tell you "god, this sucks", and you might decide not to buy a ticket or DVD because you respect my opinion so much. In either case, the movie theater and the studio aren't getting your money.
The only difference is that in one case, you get to see the movie anyway, which harms no one at all (except yourself, if the movie really is that bad).
There is no slippery slope here. It's a question of getting something for nothing, or getting nothing for nothing. The latter is perfectly acceptable.
As is the former. You can walk past a club where a loud concert is going on, and hear the music for free. You can even stop for a few minutes to listen in. You can go to a friend's house and watch his DVDs for free. You can go to the library and read books for free. You can turn on the radio and hear music for free. You can turn on TiVo and watch TV shows for free, without even watching the commercials.
People seem to have gotten the idea that it's somehow illegitimate to enjoy any bit of content unless you've paid for the privilege. Not so.
Re:Does anyone see the irony here? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.dufftech.net/)
In the US, this is a pretty common occurance. Victims of gun crime are now suing gun manufacturers and there have been a few cases against hunting knife makers that have been settled out of court.
just a thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.solidz.com/)
if the source is released under an open source license it would make it nearly impossible for a "gold standard" bittorrent search engine to emerge...
getting the community to help with the development would spread out not only the work, but the blame if it ever comes down to litigation...
Well, this is going to have one good effect... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
It all makes sense! (Score:5, Insightful)
You have two choices when it comes to torrents. Either disown the sharing of copyrighted material "Piracy is Bad. We don't support piracy at all. Torrents can be used for GOOD!".
Or, you can try to legitimize "piracy" itself. Ie. Make the downloading of copyright material, so widespread, and so common, that the content providers have NO CHOICE but change their business models. Essentially force a revolution.
I'd guess, thats what Mr. Cohen is up to. The MPAA and RIAA aren't going to be convinced that Torrenting is "good" or "just a protocol". So rather than try in vain, he's gonna play by their rules, open the gates wide open, and legitimize piracy.
Remember, content providers are not gonna change by choice, they are not going to do the right thing because we ask nicely. The only way they will smarten up is if they are given no choice "change, or die".
So the plan isn't to deny piracy. It's to embrace it, make it so big it's unstoppable, to induce a paradigm shift in the industry. To bring on the revolution.
Heck, it might even work.
Aggies
Bitoogle (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.fanteja.com/blog | Last Journal: Tuesday May 03 2005, @07:15PM)
Perpetuating the myth (Score:3, Insightful)
By listing only the illegal things that appear on the P2P networks, you help perpetuate the notion that they are inherently bad, and become a willing stooge for the MPAA [slashdot.org] and its lackeys. It wasn't germane to your post, anymore than mentioning
Promote legal content: make more available (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 22 2005, @05:12PM)
If this helps create a situation where unlawful content drops into the noise in comparison with all of the lawful content, BT will be seen less and less as a tool for pirates, and it will be more obvious the value that (practically all of us here know) it provides.
I would say that if everyone just decided to start posting torrent links everywhere -- especially now that it can be done trackerless -- this is exactly what will happen.
So, my recommendation: post appropriate, well classified, well keyworded torrent links, and download only legal content, so that any of the usual poisoning attacks will fail.