Slashdot Mirror
9th Circuit Affirms IsoHunt Decision; No DMCA Safe Harbor
crankyspice writes "The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed, in Columbia Pictures Industries v. Fung (docket no. 10-55946), the summary judgment and injunctions against Gary Fung and his IsoHunt (and 3d2k-it) websites, finding liability for secondary copyright infringement for the sites' users' BitTorrent (and eDonkey) file sharing, under the 'inducement' theory (set forth by the Supreme Court in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. , 545 U.S. 913 (2005)). The injunctions were left largely intact, with modifications required to make it more clear to the defendants what BitTorrent (etc) related activity they're enjoined from." Bloomberg has a short article on the case, too.
It's about whether you advertise the ability to use a particular service to infringe. Grokster did, and IsoHunt did, according to the article. Does Google?
Maybe we need to create a new one. Perhaps one with beer and hookers?
It's actually quite a good default position, with incompetence only slightly behind it.
The number of federal judges impeached for all causes since 1904 is 10.
Two were acquitted, Six were removed. Two resigned. Impeachment in the United States
NEW ORLEANS - U.S. District Judge Robert F. Collins was convicted yesterday of scheming to split a $100,000 bribe from a drug smuggler, making him the first federal judge in the 200-year history of the judiciary to be found guilty of taking a bribe.
Federal Judge First Ever Convicted Of Taking Bribe [June 30, 1991]
When confronted by fact, the geek retreats into fantasy,
In short, site operators have to perform at least some level of self-policing in order to obtain protection under OCILLA.
Cite?
It's been a few years since I read the law, but I don't recall any requirements for pro-active policing, only that operators take down allegedly infringing material when presented with a takedown notice, and that they may put it back up if they receive a counter-notice.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Hi. I work for a federal judge. My job is writing what are, in essence, draft opinions. I have long substantive conversations with the judge on virtually every opinion we issue. I have a lot of friends who do the same thing. So believe me when I say that if the judge I worked for, of if the judges my friends were working for were being offered bribes, I would definitely know about it. He isn't, and they aren't. Not even close. It just does not happen. Sorry.
And let me add: we are very very good at our jobs. We aren't perfect, and the law often isn't as clear as one would like. But suffice it to say that nine times out of ten, if you aren't a lawyer and you think a decision is crazy or wrong, the more likely explanation is that you just don't know the law that's being applied. It's definitely not bribery and it probably isn't even incompetence (at least, not on the judge's part.) And, having actually read the opinion and knowing something about the law, I can tell you that this case is no different.
So how about this: before wildly casting accusations of bribery around, why don't you take a few minutes to actually read the opinion and then tell us what you think is wrong with it?
caritj.org
The service provider must have a terms of service which includes provisions for account suspension and termination for repeat offenders. Simply having a TOS isn't sufficient, they also have to "reasonably implement" it. This can be found under 17 USC 512(i). The policing doesn't necessarily have to be pro-active, it just needs to be active. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that a service provider's TOS is merely a façade and that the service provider is not living up to their obligations under the OCILLA then that may help their case.
If I recall correctly, something along these lines was used against Megaupload (don't quote me on that, I'm not overly familiar with the case).
You seem to confuse the Internet with the physical world. Sorry to pop your bubble, but both things are very different. Anarchy never worked and won't likely ever work in the physical world. It worked very well for a decades in the Internet though.
Here it's Slashdot, BBC, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeerah, ABC, SBS, Sydney Morning Herald, Pravda, South China Post. Sometimes I watch CCTV news as well. Occasionally, I read Pravda in an effort to keep my very rusty Russian language skills from entirely disappearing (okayyyyy... maybe a bit of Soviet nostalgia there, too; so sue me, already, for having grown up in the heyday of the Cold War, and let's get on with it).
I quit bothering very much with CNN or any other US outlet ten years ago... About 5 minutes after I saw how much news *didn't* get reported on the American sites/channels. Which was about 5 minutes after my first evening TV news experience in Australia with ABC, SBS, and BBC.
Shit, last time I was *in* the US, I watched SBS or BBC on my laptop for my news fix. Tried to watch CNN with my Dad, and the cognitive dissonance actually started making my head hurt.
Fortunately, he lives on a lake in Florida; he, his dogs, his fishing boat, and I found lots better things to do most of the time than watching television. :)
Moving away from the US was the smartest damn thing I've ever done in my life--it got me away from the mental poison known as American TV.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So believe me when I say that if the judge I worked for, of if the judges my friends were working for were being offered bribes, I would definitely know about it. He isn't, and they aren't. Not even close. It just does not happen. Sorry.
And nobody's saying it does. Read the thread. I believe the originating sentiment is "the law is bought and paid for". That doesn't mean people are bribing judges; it means that people with money can drive the legislative process. The average net worth of first-term congressmen is almost four million dollars. "Lobbying" is a 3 billion dollars a year and growing industry. Really, the question isn't "is the law bought and paid for?" it's "how can anyone reasonably expect such a process to generate just laws?".
if you aren't a lawyer and you think a decision is crazy or wrong, the more likely explanation is that you just don't know the law that's being applied.
People who are judging the law aren't doing so on the basis of which laws were infringed, they're doing so on the basis of justice - which, increasingly, does not overlap with the legal technicalities.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face