Slashdot Mirror
IsoHunt Guilty of Inducing Infringement
roju writes "The MPAA has won a summary judgment against torrent indexing site isoHunt for inducing copyright infringement. Michael Geist notes that '[t]he judge ruled that the isoHunt case is little different from other US cases such as Napster and Grokster, therefore concluding that there is no need to proceed to a full trial and granting Columbia Pictures request for summary judgment.' Attorney Ben Sheffner, who worked on the case for Fox, explains some of the implications, noting that 'the most significant ruling in the opinion was the court's holding that the DMCA's safe harbors are simply not available where inducement has been established.' This case could have implications on other indexing sites, and creates a gap in the DMCA safe harbor provisions that could have far-reaching implications on other sites."
A U.S. federal court in California has issued a summary judgment against Canadian-based isoHunt (and its [Canadian] owner Gary Fung)
Why is a US Court adjudicating a case involving a Canadian citizen and his Canadian website?
The Yanks try to be the world's police in every other way, so this must be a new growth area for them.
Are you familiar with the Berne Convention? My guess would be proving infringement in the US is a first step to getting it shut down in Canada.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The judgment mentions that the US believes it has jurisdiction over an infringment so long as one of the parties is in the United States. Additionally, the person doing the inducing doesn't have to be in the US.
On page 18:
Why is a US Court adjudicating a case involving a Canadian citizen and his Canadian website?
Beause the court finds that he has induced infringements taking place in the US. I think it's the same legal theory that'll let a US court prosecute you if you shoot someone standing on the US side of the border from Canada, though the Internet tends to make such logic absurd. Don't expect any sudden bursts of logic though.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The judgment itself (pdf) is quite an interesting read. It gives a good overview of the relevant case law, explains how contributory infringement works, as well as why the court is claiming jurisdiction.
For those wondering about summary judgment, what it means, and how this can happen without a case going to trial in front of a jury:
Summary judgment requires that the judge consider the evidence in a manner most favorable to the non-moving party (i.e., the party not moving for summary judgment, in this case isoHunt). If, after consideration of the evidence in that light, there is no possibility that the non-moving party could prevail at trial, then summary judgment can be entered instead.
Essentially, this stems from the concept that juries are intended to be finders of fact, not judges of law. If there are no factual issues that need to be considered, then the jury has no job left to do - no matter what factual conclusion they reach concerning the evidence, the outcome as a matter of law will be the same.
Well, I don't know how the Canadians handle it, but I can tell you that the Berne Convention is not of any use in an American court. No one has rights in the US pursuant to Berne; rather, copyrights here are entirely governed by our domestic law, which only extends as far as our borders.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well, the MPAA knew that it could rely on Grokster to get a judgment in the US. Given the lack of case law in Canada covering the subject, if they were to sue in Canada now, they could then refer back to that American victory, which might provide additional ammo in their suit. For example, the recent Supreme Court of Canada judgments that expanded libel defences referred to case law in the Commonwealth and the US as part of the rationale.
... it seems like Fung's downfall was his own arrogance. The judgment states that Fung's failure to filter out copyright content alone would not have been sufficient grounds for contributory infringement. Contributory infringement was established because, in addition to this, Fung made forum posts detailing how to rip specific copyrighted works for his site and suggesting search terms to help find specific copyrighted works on his site. He also bragged about having certain copyrighted works available on his site and facilitated access to such content via top 20 lists.
Seems like other torrent sites should take note. Never acknowledge the existence of copyrighted content on your site or specifically facilitate access to it (e.g. "top 20" lists) or use copyright suggestive terminology (e.g. "blockbuster") or profit from your site, and you might just escape unscathed. You want to offer about as much assistance as google does when searching for torrent files. Do this and the 5% legitimate content might just save you.
We also thought there was no extradition for crimes that go unpunished in Canada. Marc Emery, the DEA, and the Canadian government proved us wrong.
Long live sneakernet, and in the case of the more tech savvy, and private communications.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The plain language of the "safe harbor" provision makes it clear that the defense is not available when inducement is involved.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
They only thing you are knowingly downloading from Canada is a torrent file, which contains no copyrighted information. The rest of the the world while fulfilling that torrent and unless you rDNS or geolocate each IP, accurately, your logic is pretty faulty.
with the logic of this judge
yes
We might want our government to push back and assert our sovereignty but the governments that get elected seem inclined to just suck up to the US and take it. The US is rather like the biggest baddest junkyard dog in the yard: whatever it wants it gets or you get beat up until it does. You may not want that to be the view of the US from the rest of the world but I am afraid it often is. You may extole the virtues of democracy and freedom but if I country exercises those results and chooses to do something that doesn't agree with US foreign policy objectives they get slammed and insulted (see France, Germany, Canada).
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Marc Emery is playtime. Maher Arar is a much better example.
Moreover, Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture, and then removed them from the list because the U.S. objected.
Behind the "rule of law" and other fancy constructions of civilization, there is only the law of the jungle.
Reality check:
- Wealth makes right
- Might makes right
The U.S. is both richer and stronger than Canada, which makes any action by the U.S. morally correct by definition.
Why are you shocked that the United States of America acts this way? Did screwing the Native Americans out of their land and resources teach you nothing?
Also, in Australia, we didn't think it was possible, but they sure showed us.
Hew Raymond Griffiths
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.