This AskMe has torrents for answers.

August 20, 2004 2:13 PM

Metafilter Warez Server
posted by Kwantsar to Etiquette/Policy at 2:13 PM (26 comments total)

Oh boy.
posted by scarabic at 2:20 PM on August 20, 2004

Yes! About time!

Can anyone provide a link to a "Sodomania 7" torrent?
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:22 PM on August 20, 2004

They're ed2k links -- nothing but long strings of numbers and letters that are basically used to identify a file in a search. They don't even specify where the file can be found.
posted by reklaw at 2:24 PM on August 20, 2004

Is it illegal to point to a link now? It's not even linking to the actual content.
posted by amberglow at 2:45 PM on August 20, 2004

Movies are nothing but long strings of numbers either… While it's legal in many countries to download movies and tv programs (like here in holland. Yay!), it isn't where the server lives. Though linking to copyrighted material is a less likely to get you into trouble with the law than actually hosting it, the appropriate authorities will probably happily harrass the site owner anyway. Better to suggest "search for it on edonkey, it's there (or mail me)", just to be on the safe side.
posted by fvw at 2:49 PM on August 20, 2004

Warez Wally.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:49 PM on August 20, 2004

I'm looking for an mpg of "Add Mama to the Train". Anyone?
posted by dhoyt at 2:51 PM on August 20, 2004

Not only are those just plain old eDonkey hashes, but they are hashes of dinky-ass VCD downconversions. C'mon, that's some stone age, kiddie pool shit. This ain't a real warez server until we're doing full size DVDR or DVD-DL images.

This is like complaining about a link to a cam rip of a theatrical release. Okay, yeah, it's technically illegal to pass around, but it's such a crappy file that it ought to be more illegal to try to pawn it off on people in the first place.
posted by majick at 3:04 PM on August 20, 2004

I put a torrent link in a recent FPP (the F*ckNewYork thing)--was that illegal too?
posted by amberglow at 3:06 PM on August 20, 2004

yes. duh.
posted by bob sarabia at 3:07 PM on August 20, 2004

That said: Discretion, people. Discretion! That bittorrent tracker listing thread seems to have emboldened people a bit much.
posted by majick at 3:08 PM on August 20, 2004

That was a bit over the fuzzy line of what is legal. I don't think it's a good idea to share pointers to illegal material, hence my removal earlier this week of someone saying "hey, download all this FREE music from my server here!"
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:25 PM on August 20, 2004

On the positive side, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that p2p software is legal, even if it is used illegally. However, the MPAA has vowed to continue attempting to take down anyone they think is involved in piracy. Things will probably continue to be nasty before they get much better.
posted by Kwantsar at 4:17 PM on August 20, 2004

"hey, download all this FREE music from my server here!"

You mean the bob sarabia playlist thing? Duh indeed.
posted by scarabic at 4:50 PM on August 20, 2004

Is it illegal to point to a link now? It's not even linking to the actual content.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the courts say so at one time or another with 2600.org in the DeCSS case via linking to cracking DVD-copywrite protection code and then linking to sites that contained the code?
posted by jmd82 at 5:56 PM on August 20, 2004

but wasn't that ruling just for the DVD-code-breaking code? If you link to a file that contains info to connect you to others that may or may not have certain material, it's different, no? It's not a definite guarantee that you'll get anything, let alone something illegal.
posted by amberglow at 6:27 PM on August 20, 2004

In Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999), knowingly linking to an infringing document was found to be contributory infringement. I am not sure how other courts have addressed this or the general state of the law, but here we have two cases, Intellectual Reserve and the DeCSS case, where the linking was infringing. I do not think Matt needs these kinds of links on his site.
posted by caddis at 7:08 PM on August 20, 2004

but is a torrent file or hash file infringing? it's not the content itself, nor is it a link to the content.
posted by amberglow at 7:34 PM on August 20, 2004

Here is ASCII art of DeCSS
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:45 PM on August 20, 2004

Good question amberglow. I don't know from hashes, but under the logic of these cases a torrent tracker might be just as likely to be found an infringement as it directs traffic for a specific download, and it also has the torrent file for download. It pretty much hand carries a user to the potentially infringing material. The recent Morpheus decision would not appear to apply; I think it is just limited to whether the P2P software package itself is legal, and it was because you could download non-infringing files.
posted by caddis at 8:48 PM on August 20, 2004

torrents by themselves can't be automatically infringing because, of course, the content might not be material covered by IP that does not give possessors the right to redistribute. So Britney'sGreen Day's latest CD torrent is bad but a Linux distro would be fine.
posted by billsaysthis at 8:57 PM on August 20, 2004

thanks....it's hard to know what's what lately. I see a torrent file as putting you in contact with people that may have bits of a specific (maybe illegal, maybe not) file, but not the entire thing, and it might not even be there for you. I see it as very different from actually linking to and/or directly downloading content. If i give someone a link to a book at project gutenberg, am i directing traffic to a specific download? I think yes, but it's a legal download, and i'm directly linking to the entire content. Torrents don't work that way.
posted by amberglow at 9:54 PM on August 20, 2004

I put up my Johnny Cash collection through ftp the day he died to midnight that night. There are rare times when something like this is appropriate, such as the artists death.
posted by Keyser Soze at 10:29 PM on August 20, 2004

I see a torrent file as putting you in contact with people that may have bits of a specific (maybe illegal, maybe not) file, but not the entire thing, and it might not even be there for you.

That's what napster did, they didn't host any files, they just connected you to people who were hosting a file. They got shut down.

Anyway there seems to be all these levels of directing people to a file, in decending order of directness.

1. host a file
2. link to someone hosting a file
3. link to a torrent
4. link to a page that links to a file or torrent
5. link a google search
6. vaguely mention some keywords to search for or a site to visit

Personally they all seem very similar to me but people are more comfortable with copyright infringement if it's done by proxy. In the 2600 case I think they could get away with it by listing the urls as plaintext instead of hyperlinks.

To be on the safe side I've told friend to link torrents in the form of a google search such as filetype:torrent knoppix (legal example as knoppix is freely distributable), though I still wouldn't pull that sort of thing on this site.
posted by bobo123 at 10:30 PM on August 20, 2004

did you know you can still download free illegal music from my server?! wow!
posted by bob sarabia at 12:10 AM on August 21, 2004

and bob successfully demonstrates number 6 : >
posted by amberglow at 8:06 AM on August 21, 2004