Somebody just spent time making a torrent streaming service, and is now paying for the bandwidth it takes to download that torrent content AND to upload it to your browser. What I could quickly see about the service is that the facebook "app" of it doesn't have too many users[1], dyn.com[2] handles the site DNS (not free) and redstation.com[3] hosts the service (not free).
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/tools/explorer/?method=GET&p...
MegaUpload (and all other "upload"/filesharing websites), Grooveshark.
Google and Facebook are not really giving you access to mostly illegal content, but are still paying their own money for the bandwidth (which is huge, in the case of Facebook).
So no, your assumption is completely incorrect. Even if someone shoved a passthepopcorn torrent in there, (a) that person would likely get banned from ptp, (b) it probably wouldn't work in the first place because joker's servers couldn't join the swarm and (c) the information that the owner of joker can glean from such a torrent file would be almost entirely useless unless the goal is boosting the ratio of the user.
As much as you'd assume about something you've never used, private torrents are actually a well-oiled, quite secure machine. It's easy to think of pirates as incompetent, but Gazelle is actually decent software and the biggest problem I ever faced while involved in that scene was DDoS attacks against the trackers.
My understanding of "how is this legal" is the following - the server and server admin has no keys to the data so it would be impossible for them to do DMCA. Put.io has been around for a long time now so I'm pretty sure they've cleared the legal hurdles already.
Why do you feel the need to stick your head into the comment section and spit out a worthless one-line comment about conscience?
Please keep your morality complex out of our technical discussion.
When you explain to me why a guy selling one tomato that once eaten can not be replicated and a digital good that once replicated loses none of it's quality are the same, I'll start talking about conscience.
ps. I'm not saying that people should not pay for digital content. But when there are farmers out there who sell their products under the same rules Sony Entertainment sells mp3's of songs written 20 years in digital format, sorry there's something utterly wrong with the system.
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-seeding
super-leeching?
If this thing only gives content to you and you don't give anything back than it's pretty cool.
As for prosecution of torrent seeders, that's not really possible anymore IIRC, since the "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (= stockpile saving of which IP address has been connect to which landline, in case it is needed for law enforcement) has been declared illegal. AFAIK movie torrents were never really monitored, the focus was always on the latest music releases. I also haven't heard of any fines for torrenting in the last 2-3 years, but that might be because I'm not really in that age anymore.
Or if you want to be extra careful, use a VPN. ipredator is reasonably good, and you get an IP number from Sweden so you can also bypass all the GEMA crap.
I'd say no.
It's likely that it's caching material for torrents. I tried Guardians of the Galaxy and could skip almost all the way to the end of the film when it had only just begun.
That said, its likely that they're cacheing.
If so, then high-profile and particularly-irritating pirates will be targeted, and if the laws don't specifically make it illegal then they will be twisted to enable prosecution anyway.
In the United States, prosecutors routinely fabricate financial returns for piracy, that way it's a felony instead of a misdemeanor. They do this by making the argument that the movies they downloaded for personal viewing constitute financial proceeds.
When such a thing is not only possible, but standard operating procedure, asking about the legal ramifications are silly. You're probably still safe just by being part of the herd, but they've been known to single out people to make examples of too.
For you, it is copyright infringement. But it's hard to catch you. I guess you are vulnerable to joker.org giving you up if they get subpoenaed, if they keep records.
For joker.org, that depends on how they are classified. It probably does not qualify for a transitory network safeharbor because 1) if it's servers are uploading it is giving the file to more than one person and 2) joker.org is arguably modifying the content by assembling it into a stream. Though I could be convinced it isn't modifying it just by streaming it. If they are caching, it would also bust their safeharbor.
If it is classified as a §512(c) site, it has a better argument actually. Though I don't see a DMCA agent listed on the site.
"The court said: Whether looking at a cached copy of protected content, without downloading or printing it, amounts to infringement. Lower courts held that it does, a finding unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court.".
See Richard O'Dwyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer
Here's the US-Turkey extradition treaty:
http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Turkey%20International%20Ext...
So all in all, hardly a new concept, but this looks really convenient to use.
For recent developments, take a look at http://webtorrent.io
http://v4.joker.org/v/d027a2418e34d040f015a75376d627c0a022e2...
Seems like there's some caching going on. Good idea.
Could you provide us with a little info on the technologies behind it?
With both Popcorn Time and this tool (site) I could receive a copyright infringement notice. While the streaming sites that stream the latest from the Pirate Bay & more are liable. Further, by the letter of the law, me watching these streams is perfectly legal; no copyright notice will be received.
Maybe the streaming sites I speak of are not well known or not openly spoken about because they'll get shut down?
I've never seen one that didn't. Certainly the most common containers do.
I guess what he's working on at this moment... I guess nothing ?
Normally you request what ever chunk a seeder has available. But instead you request in order. This slows your speed (slightly), but a torrent likely will still finish before the movie has making the point moot.
This isn't a torrent client in your browser, the server actually does the torrenting for you and then streams the file to you as it's downloading on the server.
If it does live long, i might start to wonder if this is some RIAA like honeypot system to have users report where they get their torrent downloads from by sharing the links directly.
Just my penny.
Different mkv from Kickass: format not supported (without loading, apparently, though I wonder if it's cached given that it was Guardians of the Galaxy)
TV episode of Gotham: same as for previous
Something is happening because it says e.g. 'Gotham' in the top and retrieves a nice faded background of the cast but I keep getting 'format not supported'
EDIT: seems to be my browser or connection; trying a different machine on a different IP and it works very nicely and quickly indeed.
Good job, I hope you find a way to make it stick around!
http://distribution.bbb3d.renderfarming.net/video/mp4/bbb_su...
