I have heard in many forums and sites where people want to know how to make How to Make A TorrentTrackers basically I have heard of two ways…

HTML Source Also General Site Source Etc…

http://www.btiteam.org

Very Bacic but very relible! Requires MySQL and PHP Etc…

OR

vBulletin Way…

You need the vBTorrentTracker Soruce

http://sourceforge.net/projects/vbtt

+

Also Need vBulletin License to be able to run it Legaly!
http://www.vBulletin.com

+

Space, Hosting and Domain, Its Doesn’t cost much unless you have your own hosting servers.

There are many sites using VBTT which is free but vBulletin isn’t unless you get pirated which isn’t really an option as many are closed and web hosters don’t allow the pirated vB’s to be run and most of all its an offence!

Hope that helped! Need More Info Comment!

Legal: I am Not Responsible for any Action that are taken due to my post!

Popular sharing site TorrentSpy closes down after a judgment was handed down in Los Angeles. The site was found guilty of copyright infringement.

The site now host a single page with this open letter to its members:

Friends of TorrentSpy,

We have decided on our own, not due to any court order or agreement, to bring the Torrentspy.com search engine to an end and thus we permanently closed down worldwide on March 24, 2008.

The legal climate in the USA for copyright, privacy of search requests, and links to torrent files in search results is simply too hostile. We spent the last two years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, defending the rights of our users and ourselves.

Ultimately the Court demanded actions that in our view were inconsistent with our privacy policy, traditional court rules, and International law; therefore, we now feel compelled to provide the ultimate method of privacy protection for our users – permanent shutdown.

It was a wild ride,
The TorrentSpy Team

TorrentSpy deberá pagar una multa por $110 millones por brindar el servicio de compartir archivos a redes de usuarios, esto segun los tribunales federales de Los Angeles, Estados Unidos, que condenaron el miércoles de esta semana a la empresa que nos brindaba este gran “servicio”.

Dice la MPAA que el fallo contra la empresa es una victoria (nota de prensa en .pdf), para los que descargabamos desde ahi, es una baja.

Un minuto de silencio por TorrentSpy, y según dicen por ahi, sigue PirateBay.

111 milioni di dollari. A tanto ammonta il risarcimento inflitta dal giudice della corte federale di Los Angeles, Florence-Marie Cooper, ai gestori di TorrentSpy, motore di ricerca di file torrent, nei confronti della Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). La causa legale si è conclusa nel peggiore dei modi e TorrentSpy è stato riconosciuto colpevole di aver violato il copyright.

Soddisfatto del verdetto Dan Glickman, CEO dell’MPAA: “Il sostanzioso rimborso economico manda un forte messaggio circa l’illegalità di questi siti. La scomparsa di TorrentSpy è una chiara vittoria per gli studios e dimostra che questo genere di siti non sono autorizzati a continuare ad operare senza avere a che fare con i detentori dei rispettivi copyright“.

Nello stabilire l’ammontare del risarcimento, il giudice ha deciso di applicare il massimo della pena previsto dal Copyright Act: per ognuna delle 3699 infrazioni di copyright provate nel corso della causa, le major di Hollywood hanno ottenuto un risarcimento di 30.000 dollari, per un totale di circa 111 milioni di dollari.

TorrentSpy aveva tentato di alleggerire la propria posizione, decidendo di chiudere preventivamente il portale Web lo scorso 24 marzo,: tentativo finito male, a giudicare dalla sentenza.

TorrentSpy ha infatti annunciato che potrebbe decidere di impugnare la sentenza del giudice e portare il caso davanti alla Corte d’Appello. Se non altro perché dove li trova tutti quei soldi?

In ogni caso ci sono alcune cose che non mi convincono.

1. Quale risarcimento dovrebbero pagare gli editori o i loro dipendenti quando “scaricano” (uso un termine soft) contenuti ed altro da blog & affini? Ma questo non disturba il business…
2. Non è che la gente scarica musica e video perché le major vendono a prezzo troppo alti? E quanto ci guadagnano le major sul lavoro degli artisti?
3. iTunes a parte, le major poco hanno fatto per seguire l’evoluzione di internet e le abitudini degli utenti. ∞

Once the most popular torrent website, TorrentSpy has significantly lost a great deal of their traffic since they were ordered to begin logging all user data. Rather than do this, TorrentSpy opted to block users from the United States from its tracker and not to log the remaining users. This however, was not enough for the MPAA, and they continued to go after TorrentSpy and its owner, Justin Bunnel. On the 8 May 2008, a judge decided that Bunnel and several others associated with the company each have to pay $30 000, the maximum amount the law allows, for each of the 3 699 copyright infringements that they were charged with facilitating. This comes out to almost 111 million dollars collectively.

The six major Hollywood studios have won a US$111 million judgment for copyright infringement against the shut-down file-sharing website TorrentSpy.com.

The judgment, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, fined the operators of the website, Valence Media LLC, $30,000 per violation for nearly 3,700 illegal movie and TV show downloads. The Motion Picture Association of America said the judgment sends a strong message to copyright violators.

The site shut down in March, saying the legal climate was too hostile to continue. (link)

Hollywood studios won legal victory against file sharing today, as a judge awarded a $111 million judgment against BitTorrent site TorrentSpy for copyright infringement. But the MPAA, which represented the studios, shouldn’t spend that money yet. Valence Media, which operated TorrentSpy shut the site down in March and is seeking bankruptcy protection in UK courts.

Valence was fined $30,000 for each violation for the approximately 3,700 illicit movie and TV downloads. This is the maximum fine allowed by the Copyright Act.

According to TorrentFreak, TorrentSpy was the most popular BitTorrent site in 2006. But in August of 2007, a federal judge ordered the site to monitor and record all its user activity data. TorrentSpy responded instead by blocking access to U.S. users. The MPAA kept up the legal pressure forcing TorrentSpy to shut itself down.

The Threat Level blog writes that TorrentSpy did not lose this case on merits, rather it defaulted when it failed to provide internal records. TorrentSpy has appealed the default order.

It seems that the MPAA – and the majors – are really ganging up against any attempt to redefine the boundaries copyright protection. The news of this major legal decision is somewhat upsetting, mostly because it comes with no discussion about the nature (and the validity) of copyright rules in this country. It completely ignores the ways in which a non-regulated internet culture has the potential to democratize knowledge and culture – as well as cultural consumption, which helps them as well. 

TorrentSpy, a BitTorrent tracker site that lost a copyright infringement suit filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) last year, closed its web site this year when it became clear that MPAA’s crusade agains file sharing would extend to the individuals using its site. The following text is from an official MPAA press release:

“This substantial money judgment sends a strong message about the illegality of these sites,” said Dan Glickman, Chairman and CEO of the MPAA. “The demise of TorrentSpy is a clear victory for the studios and demonstrates that such pirate sites will not be allowed to continue to operate without facing relentless litigation by copyright holders.

“The court rendered its judgment against Valence Media, the company operating TorrentSpy, for willful inducement of copyright infringement, contributory infringement and vicarious copyright infringement. The permanent injunction further prohibits Valence Media from engaging in any activity that encourages, promotes or solicits, or knowingly facilitates, enables or assists, copyright infringement.”

For a second take on this issue, take a look at this L.A. Times article (its first two paragraphs are pasted below):

File ‘sharing’ or ‘stealing’?

By Jon Healey

A few days ago I came across an Op-Ed submission that called for file sharing to be decriminalized. The editors here decided not to run it, but it intrigued me for a couple of reasons. First, the author, Karl Sigfrid, is a member of the Swedish Parliament from the Moderate party — a pro-business party that’s akin to this country’s Libertarians (except in Sweden they’re more than just a fringe group). Second, although he covered much of the same ground earlier this year in a Swedish paper, Sigfrid’s new piece added another provocative contention: that unauthorized downloading isn’t actually theft. Here’s an excerpt:

In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”, the economist and Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek explains the difference between conventional property rights and copyright. While the supply of material resources is limited by nature, the supply of an immaterial good [is] unlimited, unless the government limits the supply by law…. A later Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman, describes copyright as a monopoly that decreases supply to a level below the optimal level. Copyright and the regulations that follow from it should, according to Friedman, be described primarily as a limitation of free speech.

[...]

Jon Healey finishes his article with the following:

“More important, copyright owners want the public to view unauthorized downloading as shoplifting because they want intellectual property to be as respected by society just as much as real property is. But there’s more at issue here than just the propriety of file sharing. The imagery associated with infringement also affects debates over other aspects of copyrights, such as how long they should last and who should be responsible for stopping piracy. Likening them to real property tilts the debate by making copyrights seem immutable, when in fact they have a specific social goal: “to promote the progress of science and useful arts,” as the Constitution states in Article I. Achieving that goal means balancing the interests of content creators against the public’s, which is a much more complicated task than erecting a legal barrier to five-fingered discounts.”

Of course, the convergence of on-line file-sharing and copyright issues is a complex issue that must be explored in all its ramifications and contexts. However, It is important that artists and educators continue to receive full constitutional support from both legislators and film industry, as even Hollywood’s draconian business models can benefit from free-floating and healthy cultural exchange and circulation.

But one thing is clear to me: although the development of an ethical and culturally productive copyright template needs to be established, the development of a variety of content distribution models needs to happen in an environment that is free of legal retaliation. 

Also, let’s not forget about Fair use and fair dealing (From Wikipedia):

Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are: the purpose and character of your use, the nature of the copyrighted work, what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, (usually less than 400 words [1]) and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 

While the RIAA has waged a full-on legal assault against individual file-sharers, the MPAA has instead chosen to go after individual web sites. In 2006, the motion picture industry trade group filed copyright infringement lawsuits against a number of BitTorrent sites, including TorrentSpy and isoHunt. TorrentSpy lost, thanks to its admins’ willful destruction of evidence, but isoHunt is fighting back. A recent filing in the case opposes the MPAA’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that isoHunt is just another search engine.

“There are hundreds of public torrent sites, some limited to a specific subject matter, others general aggregators like isoHunt, who like Google, try to cover as much of the Internet as possible,” reads isoHunt’s filing. “The essential functions performed at a torrent site are also performed at a comprehensive search site like Google or Yahoo!.” (link)

Right about now, Valence Media and its co-defendants might wish that TorrentSpy was the name of a blockbuster movie they had produced instead of the peer to peer network that served as a means for the wholesale illegal distribution of the creative works of others.

The judge in Columbia Pictures v Bunnell has ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs $30,000 for each of the 3,699 infringements the plaintiffs established on the copyrights in their movies.  For $110,970,000 the defendants could have produced a major summer blockbuster. Instead they have each filed for bankruptcy protection to avoid any financial liability related to the judgment.

Much more significant than the financial judgment in the case is the injunction the judge has imposed on the Defendant, as well as its  officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys.  Each has been “immediately and permanently be enjoined from directly, indirectly, contributorily, or vicariously infringing in any manner any Copyrighted Works.” The judge specified the following activities from which the parties are prohibited from:

(a) encouraging, promoting, soliciting, or inducing, or knowingly materially contributing to, enabling, facilitating, or assisting, any person or entity, via any computer server, computer program, website, or online system, network or service, including without limitation any peer-to-peer or file-trading network, (i) to reproduce, download, distribute, upload, or publicly perform or display any Copyrighted Work, or (ii) to make any Copyrighted Work available for reproduction, download, distribution, upload, or public performance or display, or

(b) reproducing, downloading, distributing, uploading, or publicly performing or displaying any Copyrighted Work.

Well, I guess Jason Hughes, a former TorrentSpy employee, might consider shutting down his site movietorrents.info.  Unless, of course, he has license deals in place for all of the content available through the torrent.

Then again Ira Rothkin will probably happily defend Mr. Hughes when the copyright holders come calling.  According to Mr. Rothkin there is no value in the outcome of the case against TorrentSpy because it “never got its day in court.”   Oh, come on… TorrentSpy had its day, in fact many days, in court.  Mr. Rothkin’s clients chose not to participate, seemingly lied to the court, and all in all appeared to act in bad faith.

The moral of the story, dear readers, of the Columbia Pictures v. Bunnell matter is that it is wise to proceed with caution when defending an illegal action because failing on a sword hurts.