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."

34 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Is there a way for a US judgement to be enforced? by IshmaelDS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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)
  2. Re:Is there a way for a US judgement to be enforce by Sirusjr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Huh? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:Huh? by roju · · Score: 4, Informative

      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:

      In the context of secondary liability, an actor may be liable for 'activity undertaken abroad that knowingly induces infringement within the United States.'

    2. Re:Huh? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
    3. Re:Huh? by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you familiar with the Berne Convention?

      Are you? Are you familiar with Canadian Law?

      My guess would be proving infringement in the US is a first step to getting it shut down in Canada.

      Um.... WHAT!?!?!?

      I would imagine that suing in Canada would be the first step to getting it shut down in Canada.

    4. Re:Huh? by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder how American proponents of such a principle would react to an American citizen being sued and convicted in China for posting information that China considers illegal to a US website that is nevertheless available to Chinese citizens.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    5. Re:Huh? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Grokster does apply, because it created the precedent of "inducement".

      http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/

      The "Safe Harbor" defense is a red herring. That doesn't apply because IsoHunt wasn't hosting material and then taking it down when asked. It was inducing users to click links which allowed copyright infringement.

      The Berne Convention agreement, in conjunction with a closed court case, makes it very likely that Canadia will throw the book at this guy.

      Basically, this is the final patch of the legal loophole that allows linking to content as long as you're not hosting it. You have to be a generic search engine, not one dedicated to finding illegal software. (The name "ISO Hunt" does not have that many non-infringing connotations, especially the comments made on the site about being the best place for juarez).

    6. Re:Huh? by Venik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The name "ISO Hunt" does not have that many non-infringing connotations

      Apparently, you are not a Linux user.

    7. Re:Huh? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      About the same as they did to a USA company being ordered by a French court to cease "violating French law" by selling Nazi memorabilia on its USA Web site.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:Huh? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Providing links to users who are actively looking for them is not "inducing" anything. Facilitating, perhaps, but inducement means that ISOHunt caused a course of action. Does the mere presence of ISOHunt encourage users in this behaviour? No, because there are so many alternatives. Back in the day there weren't many places one could go, and the presense of Napster or Grokster arguably inspired people to infringe... but these days? Please, it's one of a bazillion places to find links to torrents of ISO images. They should fight this ruling.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  4. what I'm unclear about.. by roju · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What neither writer makes clear is why isoHunt and Fung, both Canadian, are participating in a lawsuit in California.

  5. link to the judgment by roju · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Summary judgment by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Summary judgment by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Essentially, this stems from the concept that juries are intended to be finders of fact, not judges of law.

      Yes, but where does that erroneous concept come from? Chief Justice John Jay said "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy"

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Summary judgment by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Essentially, this stems from the concept that juries are intended to be finders of fact, not judges of law."

      Which is ridiculous. The entire point of a jury is to determine if it is just to apply a black and white law in a specific full color world scenario.

      This is the only direct power the people have to check government. Well that and the right to bear arms but both have been subverted at this point.

      The power of juries has been subverted by the courts who decided they no longer had to inform juries of their rights and obligations in this area (a recent development in truth) and the right to bear arms by both the legislative and the executive.

    3. Re:Summary judgment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's right. As a juror, you have a right to refuse to convict someone if you feel the law itself is unjust. It's one of the rights won in the Magna Carta. Prior to that, a juror was required to vote guilty if the facts made it clear, and this allowed unconscionably bad, unfair, and abusive laws to be foisted on the people by tyrants. With this right gained, the legal system simply chokes on any law that the people feel is beyond the pale.
        It's been a part of common law since before there even was a United States, and for damn good reason.

    4. Re:Summary judgment by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod this AC up.

      Just mentioning these rights or having literature that mentions them can result in a judge declaring a mistrial. That is because in this instance the jury not only checks the legislature, it checks the judicial.

      Judges don't like the fact that juries outrank them and jumped on the first excuse to subvert the power of the people (juries abused this power in the Jim Jones south).

  7. Re:Is there a way for a US judgement to be enforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hey moron 5there is no extradition for civil cases.

  8. MPAA Pretends to Write International Law by RobinEggs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  9. Ignore the gyrations of management by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Ignore the gyrations of management by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was a beautifully written post and a pleasure to read. Thank you for that.

      I seem to have a bit of cynacism about it, though. I'd like to get rid of that, but I think it has a solid foundation. Your reference to Prohibition was absoutely right. The problem is, this country has not learned from it. Prohibition taught us that you cannot stop a powerful economic force, and if you try too hard to do it, you will create a black market and you will provide fertile soil for organized crime. No one fought with submachine guns and died in the streets over alcohol until it was made illegal. Alfonso Capone would be an anonymous figure if not for Prohibition. Imagine all the tax dollars, buildup of increasingly paramilitary police forces, involvement of the federal government in basic law enforcement issues and lives lost just to enforce a law that should never have been written, a law designed to enforce one group's Puritannical moral objections on everyone else.

      For anyone who's actually familiar with American history and tradition, it's hard to imagine anything more un-American than using law to micromanage the personal lives of others. You cannot tell a person what they may put into their body without also, implicitly, claiming ownership of their body. Yet that happened, right here in the "land of the free." And we tolerated it, because we were told that it was for our own good.

      Then consider that we haven't really learned anything from it because we still have Prohibition. We still have The War on (some) Drugs. Only the object of the prohibition has changed, but the process is the same. So are the problems. We have learned nothing.

      I would like to think that when iron-fisted copyright proves to be a failure, we will learn from this and find more reasonable approaches. But the utter failure of Prohibition hasn't stopped us from implementing similar laws. I would like to believe that a cultural war has been won, that when the old guard retires those who replace them will have a more enlightened viewpoint. I truly want to believe that. But I really don't see much precedent for it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Ignore the gyrations of management by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've proven her point. We know what is happening in China. We read blogs about people in China. People who obviously know whats going on in China.

      See how well they locked it down? Not as well as you might think.

    3. Re:Ignore the gyrations of management by Pentium100 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And that's why I no longer download music.

      I just break into a studio, take the master tape of whatever music I want and leave a reel of blank tape in its place. This way I only steal the music and not the tape itself. The studio experiences the same loss as if I would have just downloaded the music, but this way I get higher quality.

  10. Re:International "Commerce" by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...).

    Isn't it the USERS in the US who are violating US law?

    Anyway, it'll all be moot in the next couple of decades, as it gets to the point where software-generated 3d movies and pro-quality music will be able to be generated by anyone in their own home with consumer-grade hardware and software.

    We're already seeing self-publishing getting a toe-hold in the literary and music worlds, and it's freaking out the old school. When everyone can generate content, who needs the content rent-seekers?

  11. Re:International "Commerce" by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Say a foreign country bans use of encryption without a license. So is every HTTPS site in the world in violation if it doesn't firewall off all the country's IP ranges?

  12. Most BitTorrent sites submit entries to Google by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  13. I've read the court order and... by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... 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.

  14. Re:Inducing copyright infringement by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?!
  15. Re:International "Commerce" by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People may be illegally importing said material into the U.S. but ISOHunt is doing what its doing in Canada and therefore falls under their laws.

    If you download a file from a Canadian server then you acquired the material in Canada and imported into the U.S. That's on you, the importer.

  16. Re:Is there a way for a US judgement to be enforce by chocomilko · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:Is there a way for a US judgement to be enforce by Snaller · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  18. Re:International "Commerce" by socsoc · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  19. Didn't you know - America rules the world by Snaller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until the Chinese tell them otherwise ;)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating