[retonato]

That's a very good question. I think that dialog in filesharing/linking court cases has moved from "link vs torrent vs file" issue to "does this site/person make possible bypassing copyright protection, and, if so, to what extent?" issue.

Part of the torrent community still holds to the old (and comfortable, I must say) idea, that files and links (no matter in which form, http or magnet) are something fundamentally different. Files can be illegal, links cannot. Links are just text, infohashes are just numbers and so on.

The reality, as I see it, is different:

1. If something makes bypassing copyright protection as easy as making 2 mouse clicks and waiting a few minutes - that "something" is illegal, the person which operates it also commits a crime. Indirectly, by facilitation (=providing aid), but still.

2. Even if the law in this area is too old or too general to specifically mention such cases - the court practice is still little by little moving in that direction (=files and links doesn't matter, those are technical details; bypassing copyright - does matter)

[hehetrthrthrjn]

So even showing the infohash would be illegal? That's all you really need.

[retonato]

In my opinion even showing infohash would be illegal. Anything, which provides enough information for downloading by a generic torrent client.

[elastolin]

That makes total sense. A more pragmatic and less technical interpretation. I don't condone it seems that's the way we're headed.

It does seem like a slippery slope, though. Someone could argue that your site facilitates bypassing copyright for merely letting users know a particular torrent even exists. They would simply look it up by name in a torrent index that does share magnet links.

Thanks for the insight, and good luck with the website!