Saying a link is the same as actually offering you the copyrighted data means that almost *every* sight is liable for copyright infringement. Because *everything* on the internet links to *everything* eventually. Good point, except nobody is saying that a mere link to copyrighted data makes one contributorily or vicariously liable. Sure, it's one of the elements here, but it's not the entire cause of action. Read the judge's order I posted above. She explains the elements of both contributory and vicarious liability.
This judge chose to interpret the law in the harshest way forward and/or no opposing lawyers and technical experts explained to him the implications of his ruling. This ruling will be overturned when it is used against a well funded defendent. If the Supreme Court re-decided Grokster, you may be right. Notice, however, that this case relies on precedent set in a case where Yahoo! was a defendant. If Yahoo! isn't the ultimate deep pocket with money to fight lawsuits, who is?
Since the judge is in california and I believe takes california interests to heart and was almost certainly hand-picked by the RIAA lawyers as a "friendly" judge based on past rulings I do not agree with your naive image of him as some impartial jurist enforcing the law without prejudice. This was an action by the MPAA, not the RIAA. And the judge certainly wasn't picked by the plaintiffs. When one files a case in federal court, a judge is assigned to the case from a pool of judges that sit on the district court. Also, the judge is a woman, not a man, and you have pointed to no prior rulings in which the judge has provided favorable decisions on this issue or to this plaintiff in particular. Your accusations are absolutely baseless and uninformed.
You're letting your frustrations with the outcome of this case cloud the true reason it was decided the way it was: it's what Congress intended.
In this case, the judge's order of May 10, 2006, explains the law on point. This case didn't really add anything new to the interpretation of the law.
To answer your question, though, it seems likely that sites like MiniNova and seeders could be held liable for direct, contributory, and/or vicarious infringement. As the Supreme Court said in Grokster, "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it." Grokster, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2776 (2005) (citations omitted). The further elements of contributory and vicarious infringement are discussed in the court's order that I linked to above.
Thirty-thousand dollars seems excessive, but that's what the law allows. The statutory damages provision for copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. sec. 504, provides that "the copyright owner may elect . . . to recover . . . an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work . . . in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just." If you read on, you'll notice that if the court finds willful infringement, the court may increase damages to $150,000.
In this case, there was no wiggle room for the judge. The judge's order of May 10, 2006, plainly explains the law (albeit in the context of denying a motion to dismiss).
This case came out the way the law says it should and is consistent with similar cases. If you don't like the law, blame Congress, but don't make baseless accusations of judicial impropriety because the judge enforces a law you don't like.
The answer is that it depends. The costs of collection would likely outweigh any recovery. What's important here is that the plaintiffs got the injunction and the defendants have no possibility of ever paying off the judgment.
The judgment does give the MPAA leverage over the defendants. Of course, the great thing about America is Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. If the MPAA threatens to collect, the individual defendants can threaten to file bankruptcy. (In a nutshell, Chapter 7 wipes the slate clean, including pre-bankruptcy judgments.) The judgment also means that the business's assets, to the extent there were any, are probably wiped out.
Well, of course. The MPAA could go after anyone, including your dog. But they'd have to prove a case against the defendants first, just like they did here.
The MPAA can't execute on this judgment against other, non-party defendants (i.e., index sites not sued in this case).
This case hardly breaks new ground--contributory infringement is nothing new. Those who don't like the outcome of this case should blame Congress, not the Judge.
District Court judges are Article III judges under the Constitution. That means that they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, just like a Supreme Court Justice. They enjoy lifetime tenure and never need to be reelected. Your extremely sarcastic comments are actually true. This judgment is hardly unique and California industries and political connections probably didn't have anything to do with it. The order appears rather routine and does not decide any new legal issues.
Your gripe should be with Congress, not this judge.
The ideas expressed in parent rely on a complete misunderstanding of the way the federal courts work. For a post detailing the structure of the federal courts, see Is there even such a thing as 'precedent' in civil law?.
Physical presence in one country while violating another country's laws does not absolutely insulate one from liability. Liability might depend on, among other things, personal jurisdiction, forum, and choice of law. Moreover, whether one can execute on a foreign judgment is usually a matter covered by treaties or a matter of policy. In a nutshell, it's complicated. Really complicated.
Please note that parent is not legal analysis and does not at all represent how federal courts in the United States work. See my post on precedent for an explanation.
For the most part, it doesn't seem that the issues in this case are even related to the interpretation of "making available." According to News.com, "The studios originally sued TorrentSpy in February 2006, alleging that the site promoted and contributed to online copyright infringement by helping people locate illegally copied films and television shows on the Internet." Contributory infringement != making available. Thanks for playing.
Slashdot Mirror
You're letting your frustrations with the outcome of this case cloud the true reason it was decided the way it was: it's what Congress intended.
In this case, the judge's order of May 10, 2006, explains the law on point. This case didn't really add anything new to the interpretation of the law.
To answer your question, though, it seems likely that sites like MiniNova and seeders could be held liable for direct, contributory, and/or vicarious infringement. As the Supreme Court said in Grokster, "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it." Grokster, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2776 (2005) (citations omitted). The further elements of contributory and vicarious infringement are discussed in the court's order that I linked to above.
Thirty-thousand dollars seems excessive, but that's what the law allows. The statutory damages provision for copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. sec. 504, provides that "the copyright owner may elect . . . to recover . . . an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work . . . in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just." If you read on, you'll notice that if the court finds willful infringement, the court may increase damages to $150,000.
In this case, there was no wiggle room for the judge. The judge's order of May 10, 2006, plainly explains the law (albeit in the context of denying a motion to dismiss). This case came out the way the law says it should and is consistent with similar cases. If you don't like the law, blame Congress, but don't make baseless accusations of judicial impropriety because the judge enforces a law you don't like.
The answer is that it depends. The costs of collection would likely outweigh any recovery. What's important here is that the plaintiffs got the injunction and the defendants have no possibility of ever paying off the judgment. The judgment does give the MPAA leverage over the defendants. Of course, the great thing about America is Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. If the MPAA threatens to collect, the individual defendants can threaten to file bankruptcy. (In a nutshell, Chapter 7 wipes the slate clean, including pre-bankruptcy judgments.) The judgment also means that the business's assets, to the extent there were any, are probably wiped out.
Well, of course. The MPAA could go after anyone, including your dog. But they'd have to prove a case against the defendants first, just like they did here.
The MPAA can't execute on this judgment against other, non-party defendants (i.e., index sites not sued in this case).
This case hardly breaks new ground--contributory infringement is nothing new. Those who don't like the outcome of this case should blame Congress, not the Judge.
District Court judges are Article III judges under the Constitution. That means that they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, just like a Supreme Court Justice. They enjoy lifetime tenure and never need to be reelected. Your extremely sarcastic comments are actually true. This judgment is hardly unique and California industries and political connections probably didn't have anything to do with it. The order appears rather routine and does not decide any new legal issues.
Your gripe should be with Congress, not this judge.
The ideas expressed in parent rely on a complete misunderstanding of the way the federal courts work. For a post detailing the structure of the federal courts, see Is there even such a thing as 'precedent' in civil law?.
Physical presence in one country while violating another country's laws does not absolutely insulate one from liability. Liability might depend on, among other things, personal jurisdiction, forum, and choice of law. Moreover, whether one can execute on a foreign judgment is usually a matter covered by treaties or a matter of policy. In a nutshell, it's complicated. Really complicated.
Please note that parent is not legal analysis and does not at all represent how federal courts in the United States work. See my post on precedent for an explanation. For the most part, it doesn't seem that the issues in this case are even related to the interpretation of "making available." According to News.com, "The studios originally sued TorrentSpy in February 2006, alleging that the site promoted and contributed to online copyright infringement by helping people locate illegally copied films and television shows on the Internet." Contributory infringement != making available. Thanks for playing.
Yes. I explain.