"disclaimer" section in trackers

[mrnobody]

Most tracker have disclaimer like this one:


Disclaimer: None of the files shown here are actually hosted on this server. The links are provided solely by this site's users. The administrator of this site cannot be held responsible for what its users post, or any other actions of its users. You may not use this site to distribute or download any material when you do not have the legal rights to do so. It is your own responsibility to adhere to these terms.So, from my understanding, as long as the files aren't actually hosted by the server, it's kool by law, right? :unsure:

btw, hosting files = tracker owning their own seedboxes (member boxes not counted of course) ?

is there any other way tracker can host files?

[That1Guy]

The sites are covering there ass. It is up to the users/uploaders to only upload "material they have the legal rights to";);)

[mrnobody]

The sites are covering there ass. It is up to the users/uploaders to only upload "material they have the legal rights to";);)

actually i was gonna post that one "uploader should have legal rights to their file" but since it most uploader don't own legal rights to what they upload, i didn't bother :s

quick reply though :P

[Gish]

yeah that Disclaimer is a joke. are you talking about useing torrent sites or running them?
a disclaimer has never stopped or prevented a site from being taken down to my knowledge.

correct me if I'm wrong.

[mrnobody]

yeah that Disclaimer is a joke. are you talking about useing torrent sites or running them?
a disclaimer has never stopped or prevented a site from being taken down to my knowledge.

correct me if I'm wrong.

yeah u are right

authorities would careless about the disclaimer thingy

but i am just curious about how this thing works

[Grind$oFine]

To my understanding there was an act passed in the 90s (in the US) to protect sites from being taken down assuming they are "following the laws." As far as I know, the laws are similar or less strict in many other countries.

But when people start uploading CAMs and things that haven't been released yet, it's impossible for anyone to claim they have rights to own these things, so thats when trackers start getting in trouble.

Many trackers do have rules against uploading files that aren't widely distributed, etc, and that's to protect them, and I think it is ensuring safety, at least at this point in time.

When a tracker gets taken down, it can't be just a spur of the moment thing. These people investigate the situation and they have to have dirt on them, they have to PROVE there is illegal activity with evidence. Otherwise, they'll just take the site owner to court and nothing will happen.

[SgtMajor]

Facilitation in allowing distribution of copyrighted material is the way that the suits get round that disclaimer these days, in the countries that chase them down that is.

But it was prob a legal loophole way back when TB source was first written, now it's just a defacto statement for those sites hosted in countries that don't have such stringent laws and will not be pursued as vigorously as other places.

[pharaoh]

take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Privacy_Act

[dunson]

I'm not an expert, but after reading a lot of cases, I really think this argument is weak. Once this issue really arises in a torrent case specifically, the expert testimony will easily show that the way torrents work (that they work by downloading the metadata file with a passkey given to you by a private site that moderates and administers the whole operation) is really clear evidence that the torrent site admins facilitate the copyright infringement. But in the end, it depends on how the case comes up on appeal and how filesharing friendly and liberal the judge assigned to write the opinion is. Here in the US, unless a judge or the legislature carves out an exception to copyright laws with regard to broader nonprofit use or digital form etc. (the former is much more likely to occur) then I think weak defenses will fail in reality.