Recording Industry Tries To Shut Down Search Engine In Spain Without Allowing It To Defend Itself

from the fairness-not-needed dept

Thu, May 14th 2009 9:33pm — Mike Masnick

Last month, we wrote about how the recording industry was able to pressure the operator of a BitTorrent search engine into pleading guilty despite not actually having broken the law. The site in question didn't host any infringing files, but merely linked to a variety of files. Previous lawsuits had shown that, in Spain, merely linking is not infringement. But with the cost of a huge court case, the operator found it cheaper to just settle. Emboldened by this, it appears the industry is going after other sites as well, despite the earlier court rulings finding such sites legal. TorrentFreak notes that in one case, against the search engine Agujero.com, the local recording industry reps demanded an immediate injunction against the site, without even allowing the site's operators to give its side. Luckily, the judge did not fall for this, and after a hearing in which both sides presented their position, is allowing the site to continue operating while the trial continues, noting that shutting down the site: "might cause irreparable prejudice to the defendant." It's good to see another reasonable ruling, though troubling that the recording industry tried to push for an immediate injunction.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bittorrent, file sharing, injunctions, search, spain
Companies: agujero.com

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 10:07pm

PLEASE DIE ALREADY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 10:30pm

what is the word for this?
Can someone who knows the lingo explain to me again what you call it when a big company with lots of money goes around squashing all the little people who can't afford to defend themselves?

And what laws prevent this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 10:34pm

Re: what is the word for this?
SLAPP - strategic lawsuit against public participation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jack Sombra, 15 May 2009 @ 12:23am

Anti SLAPP laws are pretty haphazard, in the US some states have them, others don't and in most cases they are pretty poorly written, outside the US they are virtually non existant as lawsuits are a lot rarer thus so far been little need for them

Recording Industry seems determined to change that though
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2009 @ 3:53am

"might cause irreparable prejudice to the defendant." . what a retarded judge lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tito, 15 May 2009 @ 3:59am

So the recording industry is now Judge, Jury and Executioner? They have no jurisdiction! Who the hell do they think they are?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YouAreWrong, 15 May 2009 @ 5:27am

It's called a preliminary injunction
It's called a preliminary injunction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction

In most courts in the United States, the party seeking the preliminary injunction must demonstrate all four things together:
1. That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case,
2. That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted,
3. That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction
4. That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest.

Most industrialized countries have similar doctrines (the elements aren't exactly the same, but they're similar), and it has nothing to do with the big guy beating up on the little guy, or specifically copyright cases. This happens in all areas of law with defendants of every size. Usually, the judge requires that the plaintiff pay a bond, and this can be anywhere from a couple grand to hundreds of millions (and plaintiffs sometimes don't want to pay the bond).

The judge isn't an idiot. He did the right thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Musicman, 15 May 2009 @ 5:50am

Fuckin dicks...

Freeloaders

Etc

Etc

Etc

Pay for music, it's simple. Or fuck off
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2009 @ 7:21am

Re: Pay for music...
I'll happily pay for music... if it's any good in MY opinion.

I'm not a musician, but I am a programmer. I understand the time and effort that goes into creating something that you want to get paid for. That being said, I also understand that if I don't KEEP creating, I don't DESERVE to get paid.

Personally, I don't think anyone else deserves to be paid indefinitely either. I would grant you a few years and maybe even a couple decades depending on the type of work, but beyond that, get off your butt and do something new for a change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 15 May 2009 @ 9:48am

Re:
No thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 15 May 2009 @ 10:01am

Effin Labels
The internet is here. Adapt or die bitches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 20 May 2009 @ 7:20pm

Big CEO's can get away with selling Aids tainted blood with the approval of the FDA (Bayer), censoring data about Vioxx (Merck), supporting terrorist organizations to attain a monopoly (Chiquita), etc... Does anyone get jail time for these corporate atrocities? NO! Yet if some poor and powerless entity does anything that maybe good for society that may threaten the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations there is jail time. It's ridiculous. Decentralized search/file systems are good, I don't think they should be used for pirating anything but at the same time they take away the influence that search engines and special interest groups may have over the Internet to censor important information. I want to see criminal sanctions when CEO's of corporations act unethically. I want to see them in jail, I want to see their personal assets taken away, I want to see huge fines, they should be personally punished. Bayer should never be allowed to sell Aids tainted blood without criminal consequences and the FDA members who allowed such a thing should also be in jail. This nation has no accountability for real crimes, the only accountability that exists is for anything that threatens the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations (even if beneficial to society as a whole).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bettawrekonize, 20 May 2009 @ 7:30pm

Re:
Sorry, this post was meant for another thread. Sometimes I open multiple windows at once and confuse them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]