archived all the stuff from freelancing for wired

1 files changed, 25 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.27.07/Tue/torrentspy.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.27.07/Tue/torrentspy.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..069bba6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.27.07/Tue/torrentspy.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+TorrentSpy, a bittorrent search engine, has decided to block U.S. IP addresses from using the site. The move come in response to TorrentSpy's ongoing lawsuit with the MPAA. Back in June a judge ordered the site to begin logging user information and turn it over to the MPAA. Because doing so violates TorrentSpy's privacy policy, the company has [elected to ban affected users][3] rather than track them on the site.
+
+Visiting TorrentSpy from a U.S. IP address will pull up a page with the following note:
+
+>Sorry, but because you are located in the USA you cannot use the search features of the Torrentspy.com website.Torrentspy's decision to stop accepting US visitors was NOT compelled by any Court but rather an uncertain legal climate in the US regarding user privacy and an apparent tension between US and European Union privacy laws.
+
+TorrentSpy is appealing the court ruling, but for the time being it has decided to block US users rather than give up any user personal data to the MPAA. 
+
+Savvy users will of course note that by using a proxy service like [anonymouse.org][4] U.S. users can still access TorrentSpy content.
+
+But the issue is not so much access to the site, rather, the potential long term effects of the case. The data harvesting requested by the MPAA and okayed by the judge could set a precedent that compels your ISP, search engine and a whole host of other services to log your activities as well.
+
+As Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation [writes][2], "A court would never think to force a company to record telephone calls, transcribe employee conversations, or log other ephemeral information. There is no reason why the rules should be different simply because a company uses digital technologies."
+
+EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry also adds that "this unprecedented ruling has implications well beyond the file sharing context. Giving litigants the power to rewrite their opponent's privacy policies poses a risk to all Internet users."
+
+When the TorrentSpy case was first announced over a year ago, von Lohmann [warned][1] that its implications extended well beyond just one bittorrent tracker and could have a chilling effect on the internet as a whole. 
+
+>The important question raised by the TorrentSpy lawsuit: what's the difference between a "good" index and a "bad" index, and is that a distinction that copyright law can effectively make? In 1998, when Congress passed the DMCA's "safe harbor" provisions, it seemed to be saying that indexes should be shielded from copyright claims, so long as they implemented a "notice-and-takedown" procedure. The TorrentSpy suit (as well as the MP3Board.com lawsuit) suggests that the entertainment industry wants to renegotiate that bargain in court. The result could have important implications not just for torrent indexes, but for all online index and search services.
+
+
+[1]: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004518.php
+[2]: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_06.php
+[3]: http://tspy.blogspot.com/2007/08/torrentspy-acts-to-protect-privacy.html
+[4]: http://anonymouse.org
\ No newline at end of file