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."

8 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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."
    2. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.