Official BitTorrent Search Opens

starrsoft writes "The official BitTorrent search has debuted. The search engine was built by BT inventor Bram Cohen. The question? Will he get sued? The BT search seems to be down right now. (It'll really be down after this story is posted...) Spiegel has more (En): "Naturally other sites such as Bitoogle, Isohunt, SuprNova or Torrentspy have tried before, but either they became fast a goal of legal attacks on the part of the industry or they furnished rather durchwachsene [??] results. BitTorrent search however proves with first tests [that it is] as...Google...fast. The results come from a large number [of] more well-known and unknown... sites, and...permits sufficient restricting to the inquiry, in order to obtain really relevant results.""

Speedy

BitTorrent search however proves with first tests [that it is] as...Google...fast.

So fast that the browser times out on a search for "mozilla". Hopefully they'll get those kinks worked out soon. :-/

Bandwidth generously provided by Hot or Not

That explains everything. ;-)

Will he get sued?

I still think that anyone trying to sue Bittorrent or a generic search engine would have a hard time of it. Bittorrent has so many legal uses that it just isn't funny. Here's some example of legal torrents:

Privateer Remake [filerush.com]
OpenOffice [openoffice.org]
Star Trek: New Voyages [blogsite.org] (legal fan made)
FreeBSD [freebsd.org]
Star Wars: Revelations [panicstruckpro.com] (legal fan made)
Xandros Free Edition [xandros.com]
Mozilla Firefox [mozilla.org]
Doom 3 Demo [filerush.com]
America's Army [slashdot.org] (now for Linux and OSX)

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Re:Speedy

Blizzard's World of Warcraft game uses a bittorrent-like p2p download system for all its large patches.

Re:Speedy

Although BitTorrent is demonstrably usable for many non-infringing purposes, it would be naive to think that this search engine will have anything less than 50% (as a conservative estimate) legally dubious content indexed. To follow from that, however, I think my post from the previous discussion on this search engine is relevant:

I'm interested to see what is and isn't worthy of a lawsuit. This search engine is now three steps removed from the (assumed) copyright infringement.

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.

Could I be taken to court for handing out [illegal item] - yes. Could I be taken to court for telling people that Joe Bloggs on the other side of town can put them in touch with someone who will give them [illegal item] - I wouldn't think so.

Re:Speedy

Surely that problem exists on the provider's side, not the search engine's side? If I share a movie file with BitTorrent, is it BitTorrent's fault?

If I share a movie via FTP on my web server and Google's spiders find it and link to it, is it Google's fault that I've broken copyright law?

The protocol is irrelevent. (The constant game of cat and mouse, protocol-of-the-week antics confirms this.) Even the uses to which people *put* the protocol are irrelevent. What matters is that people are sharing materials to which they have no copyrights, not that they're using BitTorrent to do it.

BitTorrent doesn't share movies. People share movies.

Re:Speedy

I'm interested to see what is and isn't worthy of a lawsuit. This search engine is now three steps removed from the (assumed) copyright infringement.

The judge in the Napster case defined the litmus test that has been used by successive generations of P2P software. His decision is also what got Kazza off the hook.

As I understand the case, the judge said that a technology would be legal if it was demonstratably useful and intended for legal purposes. Napster failed that test, because there simply wasn't an existing base of legal music files at the time. Kazza succeeded because it was able to show that its design allowed for any type of file regardless of legality.

Similarly, this search engine should be legal as long as it stays within the bounds of a generic service. If it starts favoring particular sites, then the owners are going to be in trouble. Also note that the owners of the search engine will need to promptly remove any links requested by someone claiming a copyright, in order to sustain carrier status under the DMCA.

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?

Definitely not. Distributing copyrighted material is not illegal. Illegally distributing copyrighted material is illegal. I realize most people around here don't catch the distinction, so I'll attempt to explain.

You see, when the Mozilla Foundation produces a release of FireFox they have an automatic copyright on their work. That copyright gives them the sole control over its redistribution. In MF's case, they decide to freely allow for BitTorrent distribution and redistribution. That is their right as a copyright holder. However, when George Lucas produced Star Wars III he chose to only allow for distribution to theaters under a royalty agreement. Redistribution is not permitted (except for perhaps companies who create film copies on behalf of Lucas) and thus is illegal if found on a P2P network.

Re:Speedy

The whole "no-reverse engineering" provision is pretty dang scary to me.. .. So I'd say it wasn't a good law by any stretch of the imagination, because it enforces vendor lock-in, which -may- have absolutely NOTHING to do with defending copyright. .. The prime example of this is the DVD region stuff. The main reason to do this, from a market perspective, is that you can sell to China at a lower price than in the U.S., and those people in the U.S. are prevented from playing those chinese discs on their american dvd players, regardless of whether or not those discs were legally purchased.

There are other problems.

"legally dubious"

Remember that not all the world has bought into the united states lame idea of intellectual property, and anti innovation laws. IDK where bittorrent.com is being hosted, but if they get bothered by the MPAA, they'll probably just go to Denmark or Switzerland where information is still free.

Re:"legally dubious"

Actually, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that in the US, Copyright is NOT a moral right [wikipedia.org] (as it is in most of Europe); rather it is a (Constitutionally-granted) temporary monopoly over distribution. This is a very important distinction to note because if I own the copyright to some creative work, my control over that work extands only as far as distribution is concerned. After that, I have no legal standing to dictate how you use my work. For example, if I were to use a picture of Jar-Jar as toilet paper, George can't sue me for violating the intregrity of his work. However, if George did have moral rights over his work, he could sue me.

Essentially, what it comes down to is under US law, the creator gets more of a 'licence' to his work whereas in other countries his creative works are treated like real property. This is why the bastardized term "Intellectual Property" really pisses me off--there exists no intellectual property in the US. Creators have no moral right to their property. As much as some corporate interests would love complete control of their "Property," their protections are bestowed to them by the Constitution and the Constitution only.

Re:Speedy

This is the reason I threw all my Metallica shit in the garbage. Fuck Metallica!!

Of course, this did nothing to actually fuck Metallica. In fact, it probably made them money rather than lost them money.

How so?

Well, if you kept your Metallica stuff (music, T-shirts, videos, I assume), then in the future you might decide that you just don't care for Metallica anymore. So you sell it. And the people who bought your used stuff might not buy new stuff from Metallica because they just bought your stuff.

But now that you've thrown it away (it's destroyed, presumably), this cannot happen, and now somebody will have to buy new Metallica shit, lining Lars' pockets with even more gold.

Good job!

Re:Speedy

Don't underestimate symbolism. Aside from expressing how he feels to himself, he expresses to many others how he feels. A band depends on other people for its worth. Actions like this diminish it, even if it doesn't cost them a few quid immediately.

Re:Speedy

You may find it interesting that Metallica has a lakefront house near where I live. They are having constant hassles with people because they keep trying to close "their" beach even though the beach is public access up to high water mark. This is the same as their attitude on their music... greedy.

Plus Google is mo better

Just tried searching for "Revenge of the Sith" on bittorrent's new search engine and "filetype:torrent Revenge of the Sith" on Google. Google wins hands down for number of hits. Two hits on BT's search and three pages on Google.

Re:Plus Google is mo better

Keep in mind that that the BitTorrent engine is going to show you two specific torrents. Google shows you those same two torrents, albiet listed (likely even just referenced and not linked) on dozens of websites. I think Brahm is gosh darn crazy having a hand in this, but as an avid torrent downl- err, 'content browser,'- it's seems as efficient as using several sites to find one particular thing.

Re:Speedy

A fan-produced Star Trek movie is definitely not legal.

Have you been to their site? They have explicit permission to create these episodes. In general, Paramount has stated that they don't mind too much as long as no one is making money off of their trademarks. Same thing with the Star Wars film. George Lucas has given quite a bit of leeway to fans in creating works based on his universe.

I'm 99.5% certain of the legality of all the torrents I've linked to. Even in the (extremely slim) chance that one of them is contested by a trademark or copyright holder, that's for the otherwise upstanding distribution sites to sort out.

help mee

"I don't understand? The search engine doesn't work! It just sits there and does nothing!"

Re:help mee

"I don't understand? The search engine doesn't work! It just sits there and does nothing!"

My boss just walked by. He said that he has the same problem with some of his employees. [oops!]

use gnutella?

I wonder why people haven't been using many of the other p2p applications out there, particularly the decentralized ones, to search for .torrent files. Or am I just crazy?

Why should we?

1) It's redundant - who wants to have to use two P2P apps just to get something?

2) It's difficult - until recently, trackerless torrents have been a dream, so downloading a torrent from a random user might end up creating a bunch of seedless torrents.

3) Most people who use other P2P apps tend to not understand BitTorrent. They stick with what's easy.

Bittorrent givith bandwidth

And slashdot taketh away. I coudln't even get one search in.

"The BT search seems to be down right now."

Gee, I can't imagine why.

Re:In other news...

One thing that's nice to see in the ICE press release is this (emphasis added):

"ICE and the FBI have shut down a group of online criminals who were using legitimate technology to create one-stop shopping for the illegal sharing of movies, games, software and music."

I think he'll get sued but...

I don't think the legal efforts against him will be successfull. Here's why:

When Napster was sued they actually had content in their possession. Not the case here. Even if they were able to prove that you could get content from the network, you aren't technically scearching for the content you get. You're scearching for torrents, which are small files with no real copy righted data in them. They're little road signs that point you where to go. It would be like getting arrested for creating a phone book just because you might be able to find the number of someone who has drugs in the book.

Re:I think he'll get sued but...

Metaphor Error.

You can't ask the phone book for class A drugs and get a valid number you can ask a torrent search site for a particular copyrighted film and get the right torrent.

Therefore the phone book is not helping you engage in an illegal activity but the torrent site might be.

Re:I think he'll get sued but...

I really understand what you're saying, but you are not entirely correct. The phone company doesn't do much to vet the listings. You tell them a name you want your home number listed under and they'll print it. Haywood Jablome, for instance, lasted for some years in my local phone book.

More pertinent to your premise a local chain competing with Radio Shack operated for 10 years or so selling drugs over the counter at retail.

There are these things called "code words", which, as it happens, were included in their Yellow Pages ad. People were, indeed, able to look them up in the phone book and determine that they purported to be a source for illegal drugs.

Massage parlors, the already mentioned escort services and a small host of other businesses that are known to, occasionally, offer illegal goods and services, use the phone book in a like manner and if you know the local lingo you can often determine which ones actually offer such services from their phone book ads. Once one goes deep into the dark side certain unusal names attached to home phone numbers function as code words. Hermine Xenophone, just to make up a possible example on the spot.

There are all sorts of goods that are legal in one context but illegal in another, kinda like some content files (it's perfectly legal to download it for free from this site, but not from that one), and these businesses operate right out in the open in the phone book using "code words" like "Guns," or "Supermarket."

More relevant to the current discussion, the phone numbers you can look up to acquire tools and goods to commit copyright infringement are legion. Your local library, prominantly listed, will not only supply you with the copyrighted goods, but the machinery with which to infringe at only ten cents a page. They don't even monitor whether you are using their services for illegal useses or not (and there is "abandonware" in the book trade. You can buy a legitmate used copy for $200, or copy it for $10)

Nobody's busting them, or the phone company, even after illegal activity has been proven.

KFG

Durchwachsen

"durchwachsen" means "marbled" or "streaky" when applied to meat, but can also be used figuratively, meaning "mixed", "so-so" etc.

The strength of bit torrent

Bit Torrent's strength has always been that it's a content neutral utility that is great for efficient P2P. The fact that it's been picked up by some large corporations for distributing large files helps. An official search tool will damage that position.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure it will be incredibly useful. I'm also sure, that it will be filled with porn, illegal software, and illegal copies of music (whether you agree with the law or not, it's still illegal). That hurts bit torrent's reputation as content neutral, and will make some larger backers step away.

Apparently, though, the makers find it more useful to be widely used than widely respected. Fair enough, it's their toy. Unfortunate, though, that it can't be used as a shining, piracy free star in an otherwise ugly niche of the internet.

The real question

The official BitTorrent search has debuted. The search engine was built by BT inventor Bram Cohen. The question? Will he get sued?

Will this search engine help other websites get shut down?

I don't think the RIAA can sue the search engine, but it could sue sites that list torrents.

How will this search engine deal with private torrent websites?? Will it cache them? Can that be used as evidence at a later time?

A lawsuit may clear the air...

I can't help but wonder if there's a provocation behind this - I guess techdirt thinks so. A legal examination and decision (through a lawsuit) might be just what's needed to clear the air of all the *AA FUD that's tossed around...ala SCO v. Linux case. ...or it may add to it, I suppose - lots of histrionics and propoganda while the wheels of justice grind. Is Grokster settled yet?

Read the ToS

Look at the ToS, it has some.. intresting stuff.

2. Online Conduct

You agree that you will not use the Site or the Services:

* to develop, generate, upload, post, display, transmit, disseminate or store information that: (A) infringes any third party's intellectual property or other proprietary rights, including, but not limited to, using third party copyrighted materials, without appropriate permission, using third party trademarks without appropriate permission or attribution, or using or distributing third party information (whether or not protected as a trade secret) in violation of a duty of confidentiality or otherwise; (B) is or, in BitTorrent's sole discretion, would have the tendency to be, defamatory, libelous, harassing, pornographic, an invasion of privacy, obscene, abusive, illegal, racist, offensive or harmful or otherwise objectionable; (C) constitutes unsolicited promotions, advertising or solicitations for funds, good or services, including junk mail and spam; (D) otherwise violates this Terms of Service in any way; or (E) obstructs or otherwise interferes with the normal performance of another person's use of the Sites or the Services;

Seems they are covering a few legal holes.. but will it stand against RIAA/MPAA's pack of lawyers?

Just use google?

You can always append filetype:torrent to your google searches. For example:

http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Atorrent+ ubuntu [google.com]

BitTorrent.com is also using filetype:torrent!

I'm surprised that in 150 odd posts, no one has bothered to check the page source.

from http://bittorrent.com
(emphasis mine)

function sendheader(searchtype) {
var searchstr = document.search.searchtxt.value;
if (document.search.rdfile.checked == true) {
--------> searchstr = searchstr+" filetype:torrent"; <--------
document.search.action = "http://ms128.mysearch.com/jsp/GGmain.jsp?searchfo r="+searchstr;
document.search.submit();
}

So, BitTorrent search is using MySearch.com to perform 'filetype:torrent' searches. This also explains the presence of the MySearch news links.

Re:BitTorrent.com is also using filetype:torrent!

That javascript isn't ever refered to in the body of the page. It's never called. At least not as far as I can see. The form certainly doesn't. Maybe it's an artifact of the development or something.

Firefox Seach Plugin

God damn thats good service. It's already available. Kudos to Chad Walstrom! Click on File Sharing here [mozdev.org].

We have a new expression: zero-day features!

Online Translators

they furnished rather durchwachsene [??] results.

Does anyone else find that phrase to nicely sum up the state of online translators? It's amazing that they can do as much as they do, but the results are sometimes a little, well, durchwachsene.

RE: Online Translators

What's your beef? It's a perfectly cromulent word!

Owner of torrent website was just arrested

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/crime_starwars_dc [yahoo.com]

The Elite Torrents network, found online at www.elitetorrents.org, relied on a technology called BitTorrent that allows users to quickly download digital movies and other large files by copying them from many computers at once.

The network signed up 133,000 members who collectively downloaded 2.1 million files, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Homeland Security Department.

Visitors to the Web site on Wednesday saw a notice that read, "This site has been permanently shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

What makes this so amazing is, this was not shut down because the RIAA sued, or because they made threats. The FBI raided the house, arrested the owner, and shut the website down. I wonder what the FBI will do with the server logs??

This has to be the dumbest waste of taxpayer money ever. Lets go after places that share music and tv shows.

Any sites for legal video?

Are there any sites which have torrents to legal video? I would think the Prelinger Archives for example would be interested in BitTorrent. Looking at the current home page shows the top downloads totalling in the neighborhood of 1,000,000 downloads at maybe 10MB a piece. That's a significant bandwidth charge there. It would be nice to be able to easily find alternative video to watch in lieu of the MPAA's crap.

Re:what about GOOG

I would imagine BT search looks at the contents of a torrent, for instance extracting filenames that could be matched against search terms. Of course this is possible for Google as well, but I doubt that it's being done.