The definition of insanity, the saying goes, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. For the past decade, the entertainment industry has sued one site or service after another that was used for unauthorized file sharing at some time. In every single case, the act of suing that site or service ended up only serving to massively increase attention and usage of those services. Suing Napster made Napster into the service to use. Ditto with Kazaa and Grokster. The Pirate Bay wasn't that big until Hollywood got Swedish authorities to raid the operations and confiscate the servers.

So, here we go again -- except this time it's even more ridiculous. Entertainment industry representatives have filed a lawsuit against the OpenBitTorrent tracker's hosting company (Update: noting that the lawsuit is against the hosting company), which is not a file sharing site or service at all. It's just an open tracker. Now, I recognize that folks in the entertainment industry aren't particularly knowledgeable about how technology works, but at some point, aren't they supposed to at least understand the basics? The tracker alone is not responsible for anything here -- and even more ridiculous is that the OpenBitTorrent guys (despite not being in the US) set up a DMCA-like process for taking down any info_hash if they want (which, by the way, was the reason the industry claimed it didn't sue Google -- because it took down links on request -- but now that OpenBitTorrent does the same thing, it's a problem?). Either way, with the rise of trackerless solutions means that even taking this site down won't much matter. Still, it makes you wonder what they're thinking over in the entertainment industry other than ways to increase their legal bills.

As plenty of people have been pointing out, if The Pirate Bay goes away/changes/shuts down/whatever, there are a ton of sites ready and eagerly waiting to take it's place. But JJ King makes an even bigger point: the whole of The Pirate Bay is not a lot of data, such that it would be rather easy to just copy the entire site and recreate it. In fact, it seems likely that others are probably making use of this fact already, and there may be multiple "copies" of The Pirate Bay quickly being set up. So, even if the site goes away, all it will really do is further splinter the sites that upset the entertainment industry -- but it will hardly stop them or even slow them down.

Just as IsoHunt is gearing up to fight its MPAA lawsuit, a judge has ordered TorrentSpy to pay $110 million to the MPAA in a similar lawsuit. However, despite the MPAA's Dan Glickman giving the expected "this is a warning to other such sites" quote, this actually shouldn't have much of an impact on other such cases -- as the details are somewhat different here. The problem with TorrentSpy's case was that the company was found to have destroyed evidence, which resulted in the ruling. It had little to do with the actual issues at hand. And, yes, while the "destroyed evidence" claim was somewhat exaggerated when the judge included TorrentSpy's refusal to spy on its users, the destruction of evidence went further than just not spying on users. The company was found to have deleted specific evidence, including forum posts and directory info. So, unless all the other torrent search engines out there also deleted evidence, it's hard to see how this case acts as a warning to anyone over anything other than the stupidity of destroying evidence. As for getting any money, given that TorrentSpy has shut down, the MPAA probably won't be getting any money -- not that they'd be giving it to moviemakers anyway.

isoHunt, one of the BitTorrent tracker sites that the MPAA generated publicity for with a lawsuit a couple of years ago, has filed a response to the judge's request for more information on how BitTorrent and BitTorrent tracker sites work. The MPAA, of course, positioned isoHunt as a den of piracy. But isoHunt, following the lead of TorrentSpy, has pointed out to the judge that it's no different than a search engine, indexing the various BitTorrent files out there. isoHunt, itself, is never involved in copyright infringement and, of course, there are plenty of authorized BitTorrent trackers out there. It will be interesting to see a judge finally rule on this issue. TorrentSpy lost its case, but not over this issue. In that case, the guys at TorrentSpy destroyed evidence -- which is a huge no-no. Hopefully a judge recognizes why search engines shouldn't be blamed for infringement that results from the use of the website.

TorrentSpy and the MPAA have been involved in a legal fight for quite some time. TorrentSpy is basically a search engine for files that are offered for download via BitTorrent. However, because the MPAA views such BitTorrent as a tool for unauthorized use, it's trying to sue the search engine, rather than go after those who are actually responsible for sharing unauthorized content. There was a slightly troublesome ruling earlier this year, where a judge ordered TorrentSpy to spy on its users -- violating TorrentSpy's own privacy policy. Rather than do so, TorrentSpy decided to block access to US users. Now, you would think this would make the MPAA happy. After all, the site they were so worried about was no longer an issue for the entire US market. Instead, the MPAA is back in court claiming that this action is merely another illegal move by the company. Apparently, the MPAA would rather have TorrentSpy keep operating, but spy on its users, than block access. That doesn't make much sense if TorrentSpy is really such a huge problem. Unless, of course, the MPAA doesn't have any real evidence that TorrentSpy is doing anything wrong -- and this is about the only way it hopes to prove its case.