Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Official BitTorrent Search Opens 309

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the escalating-arms-race dept.
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.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Official BitTorrent Search Opens

Comments Filter:
  • Speedy (Score:5, Informative)

    by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:04PM (#12638530) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Funny, Informative, and Insightful...A well done post good sir...
    • Re:Speedy (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Custard (587661) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:10PM (#12638595) Homepage Journal
      Blizzard's World of Warcraft game uses a bittorrent-like p2p download system for all its large patches.
      • Re:Speedy (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tony Hoyle (11698)
        Blizzard's World of Warcraft game uses a bittorrent-like p2p download system for all its large patches. ..which is why anyone with any sense waits for the fileplanet mirror.

        BT is great if you're not behind a firewall or on a corporate network... for normal usage get used to downloading your 500MB file at 1k/second.

        I have 20 machines behind this firewall.. there is no way in hell port forwarding is going to work, so WoW doesn't get updated for a couple of weeks while until the mirrors get up to speed.
        • I know you can just extract the torrent with a resource editor and use your own BT client, but it's also worth noting that the WoW BT client has issues of it's own. You can't cap either upload or download on it and as a result when I run the patcher, it pretty much seems to disable my internet access until it's done (web pages time out, pings timeout on first hop to ISP etc).
    • Re:Speedy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MoonBuggy (611105) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:14PM (#12638642) Journal
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GMFTatsujin (239569) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:27PM (#12638755) Homepage
        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.
        • While I do agree with you in your statement that it's the his fault. I'd point out that Bittorrent is more likely to get sued than google if nothing else, but simply for the fact that they not only provide a scearch engine, but a means to use what you find on the scearch engine. I know, it'd be like google making a media player but that's just not how the MIAA and RIAA see it.
      • Re:Speedy (Score:5, Informative)

        by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:32PM (#12638800) Homepage Journal
        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 (Score:2, Informative)

          >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...
          ^^^
          The judge in the Napster case was Marylin Hall Patel. I had lunch with her a couple of times in college when working on a mock trial. Smart lady.

          Lady being the operative term here ;)
        • Re:Speedy (Score:3, Insightful)

          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.

          This might have been an issue, but the determining legal point was that Napster was a centralized system and therefore knew full well that copyright infri
      • 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.

        I'm guessing that because the [illegal item] you're talking about is a bunch of 1s and 0s, a direct comparison can't be made (at least in the minds of lawyers and the MPAA/RIAA). I agree with that statement 100%, but there are many examples of how complex it is to ac

      • "legally dubious" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Penguinoflight (517245) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:42PM (#12638873) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • by josh3736 (745265) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @08:18PM (#12640350) Homepage
          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.

      • Is use the search engine themselves.

        Bram's really handed them a gift: if I ran a torrent site, I would not want it listed!

        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.

        The sites are that have been sued have been a lot easier to take down: usually they've solicited for torrents and seeders, which means that there is clearly demonstratable intent:

      • by Rei (128717)
        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

        Bad analogy. An appropriate analogy would be:

        "Could I be taken to court if Joe Bloggs asks me whether there are any good drugs in town, and I not only inform him of the variety of drugs available (search), but drive him to the scene and point out the dealer to him (direct link), and telling him what to tell the dealer so that the
      • Re:Speedy (Score:3, Insightful)

        by StikyPad (445176)
        You make interesting points, but it really comes down to one question:

        Can they afford the legal battle?

        Until the answer to this question is yes, all others will remain unanswered. As it stands, the mere threat of legal action is enough to send anyone with less than deep pockets scurrying.
    • Re:Speedy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Adrilla (830520) *
      If they sue the bittorrent engine shouldn't they sue google since you can always use the 'filetype:torrent' search in the google engine?
    • by fm6 (162816)
      A fan-produced Star Trek movie is definitely not legal. Viacom may have trouble keeping up with all the trademark-infringing Trekkies out there, but that doesn't mean they're not breaking any rules.
      • Re:Speedy (Score:4, Informative)

        by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:32PM (#12639315) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • Re:Speedy (Score:3, Funny)

          by cgenman (325138)
          In general, Paramount has stated that they don't mind too much as long as no one is making money off of their trademarks.

          Well, that explains Enterprise.

  • help mee (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariDatacenter (31657) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:04PM (#12638531) Homepage
    "I don't understand? The search engine doesn't work! It just sits there and does nothing!"
  • use gnutella? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:04PM (#12638536)
    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? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by millennial (830897) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:10PM (#12638597) Journal
      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.
    • Gnutella faces the key problem of any new p2p network: It's much easier to develop the technology than to get people to use it. The new technology has to be way better before people will switch to it, because switching to something new means giving up on the large user base of the old system.
    • I think this is because torrents only recently became decentralized themselves. What is the point in searching for a torrent to find the server orchestrating it is down?
    • Actually I've been able to find a lot of torrent files in emule...
  • by yotto (590067) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:05PM (#12638540) Homepage
    And slashdot taketh away. I coudln't even get one search in.
  • by lildogie (54998) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:05PM (#12638549)
    Gee, I can't imagine why.
  • by CSMastermind (847625) <freight_train10@hotmail.com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:06PM (#12638557)
    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.
    • so if i were to post a link to the DeCSS code a couple years ago. i wouldn't get sued, because i have only posted a "road sign" to the code?
      i wish laws and our courts were more intelligent, but i don't think we can expect the correct judgement from our judiciary system.
      • No, if you created a search engine that happened to index the page with the linnk to DeCSS code, you wouldn't be successfully sued. The search engine indiscriminately references all road signs it finds.
      • so if i were to post a link to the DeCSS code a couple years ago. i wouldn't get sued, because i have only posted a "road sign" to the code?

        Someone further up in the thread put it perfectly. I believe the metaphor went like this -

        If you asked me for some illegal drugs and I said, "Sure, here you go," I'd most definitely be going to court over that. However if you asked me for some illegal drugs and I said "Joe Bloggs on the other side of town might be able to put you in touch with someone who has the
    • When Napster was sued they actually had content in their possession. Not the case here.

      It doesn't matter. If it was found that the only purpose of the search engine was to assist in illegal activities, it would be just as illegal as if it carried the content itself.

      That being said, my understanding is that this is supposed to be a generic search engine. As long as the owner keeps his nose clean, a judge is likely to find in his favor due to an "overwhelming degree of legal uses".
    • I for one don't think the legal efforts against him will be successful because the site doesn't work.

      *IAA Guy 1: Hey, a BitTorrent search site! Let's sue them!

      *IAA Guy 2: Yeah! Enter in a search and see what kind of illegal stuff comes up!

      *IAA Guy 1: ... ... ... ...

      *IAA guys die of old age.
    • Even if it is a loophole in the laws, it will be quickly plugged with legislation soon. I'll take a million dollar bet on it.
    • by mpcooke3 (306161) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:22PM (#12638715) Homepage
      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.
      • by kfg (145172) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:12PM (#12639708)
        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
    • When Napster was sued they actually had content in their possession.

      I assume that by `content' you mean `infringing content'? And by `their possession' you mean on their servers?

      If so, what content are you talking about? There were no mp3s hosted on Napster's servers.

      This argument would work on mp3.com's `my.mp3.com' thing where you could prove that you own a CD and then it would let you play `it' from anywhere, but I don't see how it applies to Napster.

    • Rather than making guesses as to whether legal efforts against Bram would be successful, he could've just waited a few weeks and found out for certain. A much safer bet (from a purely legal perspective) would've been to see how the Supreme Court Case MGM v. Grokster [eff.org] was decided. The ruling is due any day now (tm).
    • When Napster was sued they actually had content in their possession.
      Huh? All that passed through Napster's servers were file hashes and metadata. The transfers went from one user straight to another.
      • Your right, maybe I was unclear. I just meant that Napster was hosting a scearch and the servers to transfer the content. The Bittorrent website doesn't deal with data transfer of the actual content, they just transfer torrents.
  • Durchwachsen (Score:5, Informative)

    by slavemowgli (585321) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:06PM (#12638561) Homepage
    "durchwachsen" means "marbled" or "streaky" when applied to meat, but can also be used figuratively, meaning "mixed", "so-so" etc.
  • by ProfaneBaby (821276) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:06PM (#12638562)
    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.
    • Unfortunate, though, that it can't be used as a shining, piracy free star in an otherwise ugly niche of the internet.

      Ummm, I think the boat was missed on that one some time ago dude. Don't know where you've been, but bittorrent is the pirates tool of choice for fast distribution of new "warez".
    • Apparently, though, the makers find it more useful to be widely used than widely respected.

      Maybe that's because the software functions better with more users? Bittorrent would be pointless if it was limited to small circles posting approved material.
    • No. BitTorrent's strength has always been that it's not centralized. Napster had a single central point through which all Napster traffic passed; when that was shut down Napster was useless for illegal and legal content alike. The same thing happened (or could happen) to Kazaa. But with BitTorrent, every tracker is completely independent of every other tracker. When SuprNova got shut down, it had absolutely no effect on the tracker operated by a game fansite I work on. If every single BT tracker or search s
  • The real question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Seminal (698722) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:08PM (#12638568) Journal
    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?

  • by Prospero's Grue (876407) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:10PM (#12638598)
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:13PM (#12638628) Journal
    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?
    • Seems they are covering a few legal holes.. but will it stand against RIAA/MPAA's pack of lawyers?

      No. It will not stand up to the RIAA/MPAA pack of lawyers. They have deep pockets. Who is funding this search engine website?

      Secondly, The RIAA has their lobbyists. If current laws are insufficent to shut down the website, the lobbyists will get a new set of law passed. Did you know most of the laws that congress passes were written by lobbyists??

      The question the OP asks is comprable to "Can Noriega de

    • Virtually every single P2P app and website that has ever existed has had TOS similar to this. In most cases the app/site creators know exactly what will be going on, but they have to put in this kind of language to make it look like they are not openly encouraging infringement.

      Don't expect this to be any kind of legal shield though, because it isn't.
  • Question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by millennial (830897)
    Why does the "news" link send you to MySearch, a well-known spyware-related site? Is this why they're planning to be sued?
  • Just use google? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rolozo (22333) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:13PM (#12638634) Homepage Journal
    You can always append filetype:torrent to your google searches. For example:

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

    Well, sure, the editing was done by starrsoft, who submitted the article, but I just about had a heart attack when I saw a slashdot article that had been edited to make it more comprehensible.
  • Now maybe finally can we move Slashdot to BT and harness the power of distributed computing to satisfy our insanely increasing needs to geek trivia?
  • Firefox Seach Plugin (Score:5, Informative)

    by g-san (93038) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:24PM (#12638733)
    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!
  • So, with stopwatch in hand, I thought I'd test out how well this works.

    First search: "The Power of Nightmares".

    Results: Timed Out

    Second search: "Eyes on the Prize"

    Results: Timed out

    Third search: Don Quixote

    Results: Timed out

    Yup - working perfectly so far! M|R|F/IAA doesn't have anything to worry about!
  • by suwain_2 (260792) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:33PM (#12638807) Journal
    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.
  • Will he withstand a slashdotting of his new gem?

    I'm guessing no, searches are already broken.

    Day #1, and slashdot is already attacking you.

    At least there's a lot of publicity in that.
  • Today is a strange day to do it, considering that EliteTorrents just got shut down by the FBI and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Inital breaking story where the webpage appeared to be hacked: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=801 [slyck.com]
    FBI Release: http://www.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel05/bittorre nt052505.htm [fbi.gov]
    ICE release: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/arti cles/starwars052505.htm [ice.gov]
    MPAA Release: http://mpaa.org/MPAAPress/2005/2005_05_25b.doc [mpaa.org]
    • From the FBI release-
      "The theft of copyrighted material is far from a victimless crime," said Assistant Director Reigel of the FBI. "When thieves steal this data, they are taking jobs away from hard workers in industry, which adversely impacts the U.S. economy."


      Even the assistant director of the FBI doesn't know the difference between theft and copyright infringement.
  • by John Seminal (698722) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @05:41PM (#12638861) Journal
    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.

  • 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.

    I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to say, but both IsoHunt and TorrentSpy deliver excellent results and definitely fulfilling their purpose, and they're fully functional today.
  • Since we are on the topic, here is a Yahoo article about the feds getting all nasty on a torrent site. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/crime_starwars_dc [yahoo.com]

    From the article: U.S. law enforcers said on Wednesday that they have shut down a computer network that distributed illegal copies of "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" before it appeared in movie theaters.

    Federal agents executed 10 search warrants and seized the main server computer in a network that allowed people to download nearly 18,000 mov

  • Will he get sued?

    Someone will [bittorrent.com].

    Seems to me this makes it much easier to go after those who link to torrents, though I suppose the jury is still out on the legality of linking to copyrighted material.

  • How long will the site be up? (Not counting slashdotting):

    1 Day
    1 Week
    2 Weeks
    1 Month
    It's a ploy by the MPAA!
  • Usually I use:
    TorrentTyphoon [torrenttyphoon.com] or ibonsai [ibonsai.org]
    to search torrents, they are quite good.
  • Took some time to load thre results (page loading is fast but searching is slow). Looks quite ok in that it has a clean interface without tons of ads. However, there is one major flaw: No seeds / peers stats. You only get a "Speed Estimate" which was for all of the torrents my search returned: "Fast". It was a search I recently did on IsoHunt and the results may have been seeded but only with a few (less than 10) seeds and peers. This is far from being "fast" in my opinion.
    This also leads to the question h
  • by BeBoxer (14448) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:34PM (#12639336)
    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.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...