Torrentse.cx Gone :(

[ccc1005]

The site torrentse.cx recieved a cease and desist letter during the day of Wednesday, July 16, 2003 for copyright infringement. The entire website has been removed and will not return.

That is from the homepage.

[Jelsoft]

This stinks.

Does anybody know who told torrentse.cx to shut down?

The RIAA? MPAA?

[serrebi101]

it looks like bit torrent is comming to a end, bettter snatch all your stuff up before all the sites are gone! that's right, download download download!

[Ken17625]

Will sites that host hash links be next (sharereactor, fasttrackmovies, etc...)?

Thats what worries me.

[isamoor]

I think there's a fine line between torrent hosts and Sharereactor. The torrent hosts are directly cooperating in the download since they are hosting the torrent.

Sharereactor makes it clear that they in no way host the files.

Still, I don't know how long Sharereactor can survive. I sure hope they keep going forever.

And bittorrent has many legitimate uses (moreso than most p2p apps). I think Slashdot alone could keep bitTorrent going with legit distributions.

Later,

Isamoor

[Evil_Dweller_01]

Damn this is seriously not good...

I hope some of these sites get back up or others take their places

[Rickio]

Originally posted by isamoor
I think there's a fine line between torrent hosts and Sharereactor. The torrent hosts are directly cooperating in the download since they are hosting the torrent.

Sharereactor makes it clear that they in no way host the files.

Still, I don't know how long Sharereactor can survive. I sure hope they keep going forever.

And bittorrent has many legitimate uses (moreso than most p2p apps). I think Slashdot alone could keep bitTorrent going with legit distributions.

Later,

Isamoor

I agree. bitTorrent definately has potential for many legitimate uses and was simply designed as a means to distribute files/data efficiently. Of course p2p people thought in certain terms and ran with it, but it is a legitimate and very good application on it's own.

peace

[SUprEMeBeiNg]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO UR CRAPPING ME!!!!!!


i was on this like 40 times earlier today


They will be missed ;(

[Ken17625]

I think there's a fine line between torrent hosts and Sharereactor. The torrent hosts are directly cooperating in the download since they are hosting the torrent.

Sharereactor makes it clear that they in no way host the files.

I don't know anything about torrent files themselves but what is the difference between a torrent and a hash link? From a legal point of view of course.

[Sockfulloflove]

2 of the 3 torrent sites i use have gone down. (bytemonsoon and now torrentse.cx)

[isamoor]

Without a torrent link, you can't download a file.

Without a hash link, you can just search for it and then download it.

It's a big enough difference I suppose.

Later,

Isamoor

[phalkon30]

Uh Uh UH, another one bites the dust!

[zaphodiv]

If I say to you "Somewhere in the world a file exists which has a unique
characteristic represented by the numbers 1234567890" then that, on it's
own, is free speech.

If I say to you "There is a computer at ip address x.x.x.x which will
tell you where a copyrighted file can be downloaded" then thats a bit
more dubious.

If I'm running an automated system which will tell a client on your
computer where to get a copyrighted file then in the jurasdiction
of the USA under the prescendent set by the napster judgement
I'm guilty of contributory copyright infringment.

I think that sharereactor releasers admit far too much for their
own good.

A possible reason that hash sites have not been targeted is that
it would be straightforward to distribute a database of hash links
over filesharing networks. Perhaps just by putting a copy of the
website in a zip file and sending out a new copy every week.
Add a cryptographic signature so that people can be sure a new
list has come from the same source. No more struggling by the
operator to pay the web hosting bill either.

[Ken17625]

If I say to you "There is a computer at ip address x.x.x.x which will
tell you where a copyrighted file can be downloaded" then thats a bit
more dubious.

Alrighty then. I think I understand better now.

[FileHoover]

Doesn't matter if you legally responsible for the copyright violations that the RIAA blames on you.

The predominating factor is, can you afford to pay the legal fees to defend yourself?

Sites that post any sort of helpful information to copyrighted files, that contribute to the downloading thereof, IN THE EYES OF THE RIAA, not necessarily in the eyes of the law, have to be prepared and financed to be able to defend themselves.