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."
I mean ISOHunt is in Canada, can this be used to shutdown ISOHunt? or is this mostly about posturing?
letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
Well even if it was enforceable, ISOhunt can always appeal the grant of summary judgment and perhaps the appeals court will reverse and call for an actual trial.
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?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What neither writer makes clear is why isoHunt and Fung, both Canadian, are participating in a lawsuit in California.
Because the MPAA could legitimately claim that his service was available to U.S. citizens, U.S. based equipment, and/or passed over U.S. network lines, the court (correctly) ruled that the MPAA had standing in this country.
If isoHunt turned off access via U.S. IP address blocks, it would theoretically no longer be in violation of U.S. law - only potentially Canadian law (which Fung states he is not violating...).
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
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.
Hey moron 5there is no extradition for civil cases.
Why are you all surprised that a case against a canadian was heard in California?
The MPAA have pretended for the last decade that US copyright law has worldwide jurisdiction, and their attorneys have generated lawsuits or cease-and-desist letters reflecting this belief. Dreamworks sics the DMCA on Pirate Bay
Between the EU and the MPAA there's always someone trying to concentrate their own power by making their favorite local laws the international rule.
I used to read stuff like this and get upset. But then I realized that my entire generation knows it's baloney. They can't explain it intellectually. They have no real understanding of the subtleties of the law, or arguments about artists' rights or any of that. All they really understand is there is a large corporation charging private citizens tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, for downloading a few songs here and there. And it's intuitively obvious that it can't possibly be worth that.
So what's happened is that this entire generation has disregarded copyright law. It's become a moot point. They could release attack dogs and black helicopters and it wouldn't really change people's attitudes. It won't matter how many websites they shut down or how many lives they ruin, they've already lost the culture war. At this point the only thing these corporations can do is shift the costs to the government and other corporations under color of law in a desperate bid for relevance. That's pretty much what they're doing.
But what does this mean for the average person? Well, it means that we google and float around to an ever-changing landscape of sites. We communicate by word of mouth via e-mail, instant messaging, and social networking sites where the latest fix of free movies, music, and games are. If you don't make enough money to participate in the artificial marketplace of entertainment goods -- you don't exclude yourself from it, you go to the grey market instead. And all the technological, legal, and philosophical barriers in the world amount to nothing because there's a small core of people like you and I, here on slashdot, that do understand the implications of what they're doing and we continually search for ways to screw them over and liberate their goods and services for "sale" on the grey market. It is, economically and politically, structurally identical to the Prohibition, except that instead of smuggling liquor we are smuggling digital files.
Billions have been spent combatting a singularily simple idea that was spawned thirty years ago by a bunch of socially-inept disaffected teenagers working out of their garages: Information wants to be free. Except information has no wants -- it's the people who want to be free. And while we can change attitudes about smoking with aggressive media campaigns, and sell people material goods and services they don't really need, we cannot change the fundamental aspects upon which our generation has built a new society out of.
You can't stop people talking -- and just as we have physical connections to each other, increasingly we have digital connections to one another as well. These connections have, and continue to, actively resist attempts at control because doing so fundamentally impedes the development and nature of the relationships we have with one another. We will naturally seek the methods which give us the greatest freedom to express ourselves to each other. That is a force of nature (ours, specifically) that has evolved out of our interconnectedness, and it goes far, far beyond copyright. Ultimately, this is a battle they cannot win -- they can only delay, building dams and locks to stem the tide, but they will fail. Forces of nature are unpredictable and in the end it always wins.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
so will the MAFIAA then sue Google for caching the Torrent entries and listing links to them in their search engine?
Don't believe me, do a Google search by adding the word "torrent" to any downloadable product type.
Google "$show torrents" sometime and see what happens.
Google "Windows 7 Ultimate torrent" and see what happens.
Google "Elvis torrent" and see what happens.
Did you find some links to torrent sites and entries that allows a person to download a torrent? Google is becoming a massive torrent search engine. But the MAFIAA won't sue Google because they are too big a target and have expensive lawyers on their side.
All ISOHunt and other torrent sites are just search engines like Google, but they differ from Google in that they host BitTorrent trackers and torrent files.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
... 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.
Yes. Legitimate copies won't let you skip it. Sometimes even the ads are unskippable. That's minutes of your life wasted for every single legitimate disk you watch. Bootleg copies on the other hand will let you just start watching the movie you wanted to watch.
Something is broken horribly in a world where the knockoffs have full feature and quality parity with the originals and in addition are superior in other ways as well.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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?
If they don't comply, the US will invade and liberate those IsoHunt hold captive!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
That means it is *benefiting* small shops and indie artists as well as the big corporations, actually. You completely misunderstand/misrepresent the dynamic. Grey-market downloads, *particularly* those from "small shops and indie artists" increase their exposure and (if the content isnt total crap, and the seller doesnt shoot their own foot by making the product for sale obviously *inferior* to the grey-market version) drive sales up, not down.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
Until the Chinese tell them otherwise ;)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It amazes me that we can have a guy bound and shipped to our country that never stepped foot in it (at lest not related to his "crime"). What arrogance on our part, no wonder people think we are f***bags and want to kill us. Our culture of laws sucks a**. Some guys want to smoke some stuff that grows in the ground to feel a little better and our nanny a** state has nothing better to do than to tell them what to do and ship some guy across the border for selling some seeds. I would freaking leave but we made every other county in the world little America's and now their draconian laws sucks a** too (see above guy gets exported for selling seeds from his country). Sometimes freedom is worth more than prosperity.
Hey moron 5there is no extradition for civil cases.
But you can reach any assets he may hold in the states, any income he receives from the states. For a Canadian, that can pinch.
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?
Reality check: - Wealth makes right - Might makes right
Wrong. Wealth and might mean that you don't have to care whether you are in the right or not - you can just do what you please. However it does eventually catch up with you as resentment against you builds. Looking at history the lifetime of "super powers" has been continuously decreasing with the increase in communication. Rome lasted several centuries, the British Empire a couple of centuries and the US will be lucky to make it to one century.
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.