Maybe it’s just me, but I wonder why those who frequent TorrentFreak have a dead-set thing against sites which remove unlicensed and restrictively-licensed torrents from their index?

To those who remove and support the removal of such torrents, its a way to keep far from the litigious reaches of both the MPAA/RIAA/other “industry rights” organizations and those single individuals who are more than happy to sue whenever some art or other work of their making is found to be distributed on some P2P index.

To those who are against the removal of the same torrents, it is a way to “bend over” or “pussy out” for such organizations and individuals, as such a stance on torrent licensing certainly accepts the explanation of the “industry” and “creative rights” organizations and individuals: that material which has been licensed under a restrictive, exclusive license shouldn’t be redistributed by a third party at all, whether it is without the license in the metadata or not. This is an affront to those who are pro-piracy, with the statement that “no torrent is illegal”.

Well that, and the common designation of such “legal torrent” sites as “useless” and “empty”, considering that most film makers, game developers, software vendors, and music “artists” don’t make an active use of or participate on any torrent site where their own released content has been redistributed.

Thus, when one site, like YouTorrent, decides to remove illegal torrents and only index legal ones in a move to make the site more palatable to the highest-bidding company, those who are pro-piracy will easily dismiss the site as a “sell-out” to the MPAA and rights organizations and proclaim “I’ve deleted Youtorrent from my bookmarks. Good riddance.” Even if YouTorrent indexes 6TB worth of legal torrents.

I think this disconnect of legal argument between those who are unconditionally pro-piracy (The Pirate Bay, TorrentFreak, Piratpartiet) and those who are (un)conditionally pro-commons (LegalTorrents, YouTorrent, Creative Commons) may prove to be a definitive factionalism that will determine how BitTorrent is used, developed and promoted in the future. As one who uses BT, I feel that the two sides can co-exist for as long as their purposes and stances are clear and separate enough for users to see: those who are pro-commons should stick with pro-commons licenses and media, while the pro-piracy folks should stick with that which is copyrighted and exclusive in order to provide such media to those who may have no other alternative.

However, the factionalism between the pro-commons and pro-piracy can be destructive. The pro-piracy folks already see the pro-commons folks as a “fifth column” in the war of entrenchment against the rights and censorship organizations and affiliated individuals, while the pro-commons folks view the pro-piracy folks as being unnecessarily callous and willfully ignorant of the current legal climate that facilitates the strengthening of the rights and censorship organizations and affiliated individuals.

It may stem from the ultimate targets of the two sides: the pro-piracy folks would rather fight the MPAA and others of it’s ilk using the brute strength of the “hydra effect” (also known as the “Streisand effect“), while the pro-commons folks would simply create and index freely-licensed, non-exclusive works that could then render the MPAA and subscribing companies a bit more irrelevant and redundant.

But why not get the monkey off your back as soon as possible, rather than use the capabilities of the Hydra to engage in a perennial, never ending battle against those who will come back again and again for one more fight, using whatever destructive means to kill the hydra and f*** the others over?