←back to thread

655 points k-ian | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
diggan ◴[] No.44302108[source]
> Is this legal?

Why wouldn't it be? You're not actually hosting a tracker in this case, only looking at incoming connections. And even if you do run a tracker, hard to make the case that the tracker itself is illega. Hosting something like opentrackr is like hosting a search engine, how they respond to legal takedown requests is where the crux is at, and whatever infra sits around the tracker, so police and courts can see/assume the intent. But trackers are pretty stupid coordination server software, would be crazy if they became illegal.

replies(8): >>44302128 #>>44302134 #>>44302420 #>>44302712 #>>44303308 #>>44303436 #>>44305263 #>>44310124 #
eli ◴[] No.44310124[source]
The Anti-Circumvention Clause in the DMCA says "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology [...] is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [or] has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"
replies(1): >>44310290 #
myrmidon ◴[] No.44310290[source]
It seems difficult to argue that this would apply, because what would the "technological measure to control access" be that a bittorrent client (or tracker) is circumventing?

I also don't know of any precedent where bittorrent software/client itself was ruled illegal (but am not a lawyer).

replies(2): >>44310709 #>>44311243 #
1. lacoolj ◴[] No.44310709[source]
The technological measure to control access is probably a crawler looking for standard download links for lawyers to send out C/D letters.

Good question though, would love to know what specific tech is in use (or if it's just "finding it on search engines organically")