French Court Says Merely Having The Word 'Torrent' In Your Domain Means You Are Encouraging Infringement

from the legal-uses,-anyone? dept

Fri, Jun 3rd 2011 4:30pm — Mike Masnick

We've noticed before how many copyright maximalists make claims that suggest they believe that all BitTorrent is used for is infringement, even though it is used as an efficient distribution mechanism for all sorts of legitimate offerings. However, a court in France has apparently decided to punish the admin of a forum/search engine for torrent files, in part, by claiming that having the word "torrent" in your URL means that you're encouraging infringement:

The papers include a statement from the Court which declares that �..the names of these sites [when they include the word 'torrent'] encourage illegal activity. Torrent sites are accessed by users of the BitTorrent protocol which has a main, if not unique purpose, of enabling downloading of copyright protected works.�

In a nutshell, having the word �torrent� in a domain name can be reason enough to presume bad intentions.

That's pretty ridiculous, as there are sites that use the word "torrent" that have nothing to do with infringement. Seems like yet another case of people who don't understand technology making decisions that seriously impact everyone.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, france, infringement, language, torrent

67 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:37pm

Can this be applied to everything else? Quick! Tell furnitureporn.com that they're responsible for the corruption of our kids! It has porn in it's URL! It must be dirty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:37pm
  
  Re:
  toplessrobot.com should be nervous right now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:21am
  
  Re:
  Well, I guess the Hawkins Exteriors site (deals in Windows/Doors/Siding) http://hawkinsexteriors.com/ , will need to come down too because it encourages S-E-X, with no regard to the fact that a child might visit the site... and then want to have sex... in a French doorway or French Window???
  
  Based on that same logic, France courts will have to rule that being a Catholic Priest encourages sex with boys. So in France, you can still be a Catholic or a Priest, but not both, because then you're obviously a admitted practicing pedophile.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    let's not even mention http://www.penisland.com
    
    A moron in a hurry might think it's Utopia for Mr. Garrison.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:40pm

So when will TorrentFreak be banned in France?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:28pm
  
  A url that does NOT encourage infringement
  Here is an example of a URL that does NOT encourage infringement.
  
  http://216.180.241.102
  
  After all, the URL does NOT have "torrent".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: A url that does NOT encourage infringement
    You're right! The French Court got it wrong, it's the DNS server that links the self-incriminating word to the site. Ban DNS servers! Those illegal infernal computational devices will be the downfall of humanity! Burn witch, burn! (Oops, sorry, wrong continent and/or country.) To the guillotine with the DNS servers! Off with their headers!
    
    DNS Servers: The "roots" of all evil!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:47pm

Bram Cohen did not invent the word "torrent". The French should know that, since they're the ones who derived it from the Latin "torrens".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:25am
  
  Re:
  Bram Cohen did not invent the word "torrent". The French should know that, since they're the ones who derived it from the Latin "torrens".
  
  What? You mean they copied it? Those thieving pirates!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:55pm

Ban these sites too
http://nicktoons.nick.com/videos/clip/torrent-of-terror-clip.html

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/To rrential_Tribute

http://www.torrentialdownpour.com/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ torrential
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re: Ban these sites too
  Don't ban this one! It doesn't have torrent in the url.
  
  http://216.180.241.102
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:56pm

http://www.wowhead.com/spell=74242/enchant-weapon-power-torrent
Video games are encouraging piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:58pm

In practice, often true. As a catch-all principle, ridiculously presumptuous and unjustifiably broad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grey Ferret, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:01pm

Breaking news: In light of the recent ruling out of France, the newly founded IP protectionist group, STN, has decided to sue the creators of their website. "We thought there was something shady about these guys when we hired them to create www.stoptorrentsnow.com for us," said their spokesperson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joseph Durnal, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:10pm

Not
I have a couple hundred gigs of files shared via bit torrent. Mostly linux and bsd distributions and other open source apps along with some public domain books, audio, & video. I consider it a great use of my unused bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- someone (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:34pm
  
  Re: Not
  I typically get new ISO's for ubuntu/debian using bit-torrent too.
  
  Considering that Linux and BSD distributions are protected by copyright I guess the courts are right when they said:
  
  "Torrent sites are accessed by users of the BitTorrent protocol which has a main, if not unique purpose, of enabling downloading of copyright protected works.�
  
  Too bad the courts overlooked the FACT that some people WANT to share their copyrighted works using bit-torrent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Not
    BitTorrent protocols does not have a unique purpose of enabling downloading of copyright protected works. There are lots of other protocols (Http, Https, Ftp, email, etc) that can also be used to download copyright protected works.
    
    Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with downloading copyright protected works.
    
    Ubuntu, for instance is copyright protected, and I've downloaded and uploaded it many times. With the full blessing of the copyright owners.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:43pm
  
  Re: Not
  According to Ivan Hoffman, you are destroying the free market.
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110603/00214214533/entertainment-industry-lawyer-public-domai n-goes-against-free-market-capitalism.shtml
  
  You are the dirty rotten thief.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:31pm

"We've noticed before how many copyright maximalists make claims that suggest they believe that all BitTorrent is used for is infringement.."

I have taken notice as well...none have ever made the suggestion, at least to my knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:32pm
  
  Re:
  .torrent = .crime
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Gizzi (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:34pm

TorrentialRain.com is Out
Well, that ruins my new domain idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:55pm

Idiocracy
So we could assume then, by their logic:
StopChildPorn = Site promoting child porn
StopTorrents = Site promoting illegal downloading
StopThinking = Site about the French government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:34pm

So, what's with the torrent of bad decisions from France lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:35pm

I suppose that France will shutdown sites that encourage white water rafting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:46pm

Wow, AJ must have graduated quickly to be a judge in France already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:30pm

The thing is that, this is a decision by the appeal court, which can be appealed again, as the equivalent of the supreme court in france, as "fully knowing of wrongdoings" is not something that's assumed in france.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snatch, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:00pm

French court saying all torrent sites are pirate sites? Kind of like how all French smell fishy, are rude, constantly drunk, and their favorite pastime is slapping women... right? lulz, goes both ways panzis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:48pm

Just how stupid?
Just how stupid can they (the courts) be? Well, now we know! Torrent, torrent, torrent! I guess I am 3x infringing! ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re: Just how stupid?
  Boy: Just how stupid can the courts be?
  
  Mr. Turtle: I don't know, I've never made it without biting myself in pure shock and horror. Let's ask Mr. Owl.
  
  Boy: Mr. Owl, just how stupid can the courts be?
  
  Mr. Owl: Ah one!, ah two, ah three.
  
  Mr. Owl: Three. You're now disconnected from the Internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:11pm

Atleast they won't have a problem with piratebay, ISOhunt, Demonoid etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:53pm
  
  Re:
  Don't be silly. Pirates, ISOs, and Demons are all EVIL! Didn't you hear?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey, daemons are awesome! They have these cool wish-granting powers and everything!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thats genies (bottle optional). Demons trick you into selling your soul, much like record labels.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - senshikaze (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and /daemons/ run the internet.
        
        Fun with words!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:19pm

It just doesn't make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:09am

NEWSFLASH: Torrential flooding in France... All persons found dripping wet designated as criminal accomplices!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeni (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:27am

Went and looked it up on dictionary.com just out of curiosity. It basically says a strong 'stream' of something so I guess that's another "bad" word.

The insanity just keeps coming like a torrent. OOPS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tony, 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:32am

so
So, say, having a site offering torrents of public domain books, or free/open source software is somehow advocating piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tony, 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:33am

so
So, say, having a site offering torrents of public domain books, or free/open source software is somehow advocating piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:38am

Everyone is upset because a court figured out what is painfully obvious at even a glance: torrents are mostly used for pirated content and software.

No, .torrent doesn't mean .crime, the court is only stating the obvious. Companies who want to use torrent style technology for distribution would be smart to move to using .distro files or something, and work to police their lists so that only legal content is available on their networks. Then they wouldn't have the issue.

If you associate with known criminals, you are very likely to be considered a criminal. It's shocking that it took this long for a court to state the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  NEWS FLASH: People commit most murders, ergo all people are murderers.
  
  The story at 11!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:26am
  
  Re:
  Torrent technology is utterly fascinating to me, a programming challenged sad sack. It's a great tool for sharing large files.
  
  I so admire those who came up with the technology and hope they keep their creative talents flowing!
  
  And I even had some silly school kid hack into my wireless and DL some movie via a torrent and I got the nasty letter for it from my ISP, which after initially being stunned beyond belief, I actually had to chuckle at. What a waste of resources and time that was.
  
  In fact, it was that instance that got me reading up on what these torrents were/are and I was in awe - still am.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  If you associate with known criminals, you are very likely to be considered a criminal. It's shocking that it took this long for a court to state the obvious.
  
  Have you ever voted? Did you know that many politicians are involved and convicted for illegal and criminal acts? Does the fact that you helped put these people in office by your vote make you a "known to associate with known criminals" and then "likely to be considered a criminal" by your association? By your own definition, it appears to. Hoist meet Petard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeni (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh Bullseye, DogBreath!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Brilliantly Inciteful
  But lacking insight.
  
  No, .torrent doesn't mean .crime, the court is only stating the obvious. Companies who want to use torrent style technology for distribution would be smart to move to using .distro files or something, and work to police their lists so that only legal content is available on their networks. Then they wouldn't have the issue.
  
  Next thing you now, it will be:
  
  No, .distro doesn't mean .crime, the court is only stating the obvious. Companies who want to use distro style technology for distribution would be smart to move to using .bazzle files or something, and work to police their lists so that only legal content is available on their networks. Then they wouldn't have the issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:34pm
    
    Re: Brilliantly Inciteful
    I understand what you are saying, but you entirely missed the point. If the .distro system was properly maintained (because they have no reason to hide), and perhaps used a system of approved seeders only, it would allow for a system that has only legal and approved distributions on it.
    
    There is no reason for these people to be using a convoluted system that attempts to hide the files, the servers, the peers, and the like. If anything, they should want to be as open as possible to foster confidence in the files they are providing.
    
    .hiding is the .problem
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 2:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Brilliantly Inciteful
      What does it hide? There is encryption, but there is HTTPS too. Should HTTPS be illegal?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Brilliantly Inciteful
      expanding on your strange and convoluted logic you could also state that Judge's, juries, the presumption of innocence itself is also a problem because everyone knows that only accused criminals go to court and if they had nothing to hide they wouldn't need the due process of the law because prosecutors would only accuse and charge the actual guilty.
      
      Think about that when you next create a comment Anonymously because of course you have nothing to hide.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Brilliantly Inciteful
        Talk about a logical jump. Nobody is suggesting to cut off due process. All the judge is saying is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is enough to move forward legally on the basis that it is an alleged duck.
        
        Moving to be part of a majority illegal community of file sharers, or advertising that you are shows intent, and that is good place to start. It isn't an absolute summary judgement of the sites, but it is enough for authorities to act on.
        
        Please show anywhere that due process was being removed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TDR, 5 Jun 2011 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Brilliantly Inciteful
        I notice, green AC, that you haven't provided a single piece of hard, empirical evidence to support your position. Until you do, you are doing nothing but blowing hot air. Also, I want a complete chain of causality showing showing how a specific artist was harmed by the sharing of a specific file at a specific time, step by step with each step being documented by empirical, non-industry evidence. Or you can just fess up and admit to having no idea what you're talking about. Either way, everyone knows you're dead wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Brilliantly Inciteful
        What if someone wants to practice their rights to speak out against torrents and wants to have a domain of "notorrents.com" or "stoptorrenting.com" or whatever?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DogBreath, 6 Jun 2011 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Brilliantly Inciteful
        Moving to be part of a majority illegal community of file sharers, or advertising that you are shows intent, and that is good place to start. It isn't an absolute summary judgement of the sites, but it is enough for authorities to act on.
        
        So... for example say you lose your job, your house and you end up moving into the poor part of town, that just happens to have the majority of illegal acts occurring in that location. The cops now have the unimpeachable right to break down your door (with no "probable cause" or "exigent circumstances") to look for illegal activity (don't worry, you'll still get your "due process" in court, if your lucky enough to survive the encounter without being killed), because you wouldn't live in such a crime infested neighborhood unless you were "probably" involved in criminal acts yourself, thereby giving the cops "Probable Cause" in the first place.
        
        Welcome to: Legal Profiling Failures Based On Circular Logic 101. Please take a seat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Brilliantly Inciteful
      So, what do you have to hide, you anonymous criminal?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  WE all associate with known criminals all the time. They're called PEOPLE. IT doesn't matter what creed, class or sex you are, you will know a criminal, through the "Six Degrees of Separation" principle. So by your own logic, you associate with criminals, therefore you are a criminal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Abolitionist, 5 Jun 2011 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Everyone is upset because a court figured out what is painfully obvious at even a glance: torrents are mostly used for pirated content and software.
  
  Most Fords have been used to commit traffic crimes of some sort. Based on that, I suppose you would support banning Fords too.
  
  People like you are a good example of the harm copyright does society.
  
  Abolish copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUDbuster (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:09am

The court talks about it raising a presumption. Your headline states that courts are saying that it's necessarily so. That is incorrect since a presumption just means it's likely to be, not that it must be. Presumptions are rebuttable. If the vast majority of torrent sites and torrents are used for infringement, then how is wrong to say that a torrent is probably infringing? The court is, of course, correct about this. They're simply stating the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  If the vast majority of [BULLETS] are used for [CRIME], then how is wrong to say that a [BULLET] is probably [CRIMINAL]? The court is, of course, correct about this. They're simply stating the obvious.
  
  Too easy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FUDbuster (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't really get your point. If the vast majority of bullets were used for crime, then you could rightly say that a bullet is probably criminal. How does that demonstrate that what the French court said is incorrect?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 3:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You can't make a bullet a criminal - it's a thing; a criminal is a human who wrongly uses a bullet. A bullet can do no wrong just sitting there. How it is used is determined by the mind of a human.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't be silly! We shouldn't blame people, only the things they use.
        
        Did you know that the vast majority of prisons are nothing more than crime schools? Ergo, we should probably outlaw prisons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FUDbuster (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I should have said: "If the vast majority of bullets were used for crime, then you could rightly say that a bullet is probably used for crime." Sorry if it wasn't clear.
        
        The point is that all the court was saying is that if a site has "torrent" in the domain name, chances are the site is used for infringement. I don't think that's really a controversial statement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        .torrent = .crime
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 12:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The internet is mostly used for copyright infringement. Therefore, it should be eliminated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        .torrent = .crime
        
        The court here isn't talking about the .torrent file extension. They're talking about having "torrent" in a domain name.
        
        Do you agree with the court that if a site has "torrent" in the domain name, then chances are that site is used for infringement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeff Rife, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you agree with the court that if a site has "torrent" in the domain name, then chances are that site is used for infringement?
        No, since one of the most popular sites with "torrent" in the name is merely a news and discussion site (torrentfreak.com). Similarly, every site for torrent software (utorrent.com, etc.) has no infringing material at all, yet many have "torrent" in the name.
        
        Of course, with this sort of ruling by a court, eventually, you'll have the "presumption" that sites with "movie[sz]?", "mu[sz]ic", "tune[sz]?", "share", etc. will all be "presumed to infringe".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FUDbuster (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seems like it'd be easy enough to figure out. Make a list of every site with "torrent" in the name and then see what that site's about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        GAWWWDDDD...now they want to pick apart the English language and make WORDS illegal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]