Judge In IsoHunt Case Tells MPAA It Needs To Actually Prove Infringement By US Residents
from the well,-that's-a-first dept
This is a first. In the trial that the movie studios have brought against torrent search engine Isohunt, the judge has pushed back on the MPAA's claims, noting that it has failed to show any evidence of actual infringement by US users. In the past, groups like the MPAA and the RIAA have been able to get by without ever proving real infringement, but just by suggesting it must be happening. So this is quite a surprise. It makes the Isohunt case one to watch more seriously. The company may still lose the lawsuit, but at least the judge seems to want to see actual evidence, rather than having Hollywood execs insisting that these sites are killing their business just because they say so.
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, copyright, file sharing, infringement, proof
Companies: isohunt, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look, we all know that houses are where Breaking and Entering occurs. Hell, they even assist with the breaking and entering by pointing these criminals to a DOOR?
Also, vehicles are where Grand Theft Auto occurs, same problem with doors.
Vaginas and buttholes are where rape occurs.
And streets allow people to Jaywalk.
So, the solution is simple: outlaw IsoHunt, houses, vehicles, streets, vaginas, and buttholes, and we'll be all squared away...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for how old, I'll just call it just shy of 30...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ll the have to do is point at Jammie and Joel
so "being a bit similar to someone who assists infringement" is enough is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't they have to prove that they used IsoHunt specifically to get the torrents that they used to download and share music? Never followed those cases, but I doubt anyone specifically said, "they were using IsoHunt!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would suspect that a good lawyer could find the same music files on ISO Hunt in some manner, and that would be enough of a connection :)
As a side note, a good lawyer would only have to have a third party log into ISOHunt, select a torrent, download it, and install it to show that infringing occurs. Heck, he could even instruct the judge on how to do it himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you please explain how ISO hunt dose this? I've used ISO hunt in the past and I can assure you that they don't host any of the files. In fact this is how ISO hunt works: see Google.
The link to links that may or may not have infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
cheers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your argument fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I own guns. Guns have been used to hurt people. By your logic, the mere possession of such a thing means I hurt people. Too bad my criminal record doesn't reflect your awe inspiring Sherlock abilities. P2P technology, possession, use or otherwise is not illegal.
Also, breaking the law by downloading doesn't prove anything except that you've now committed a crime and can be held liable. That just might be why prosecutors don't go around re-enacting the crimes they're prosecuting. I don't know though, I'm no Sherlock Holmes like you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just need 2 minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About damn TIME!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Specialism v. General
Isohunt is a specialist site where the majority of the service is dedicated to one or two topics. Google is a general service that allows people to find content covering numerous topics.
I am pretty sure that lots of stuff has fallen through Google's filters and it has links to torrents etc. but the proportion is tiny compared to everything else.
Google is also a passive aggregator whereas Isohunt is actively adding value to the otherwise tedious process of finding specific torrents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Specialism v. General
If 1% of the content Google indexes is illegal, and pointing to illegal content is against the law, then Google is running an illegal business. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Specialism v. General
Only in technology. In law, the 99% legal company will fare much better than the 99% illegal company, because if 99% of your stuff is illegal, it's hard to say it wasn't your intention.
Unlike TPB, ISOHunt does act on takedown requests all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
and this is the main thing that makes them legitimate. We certainly shouldn't expect them to be able to delete EVERY single infringing material instantly but if they make a reasonable effort and do a reasonable job at removing infringing material then we also shouldn't artificially make the cost of these services more expensive because they don't do a 100 percent perfect job at removing everything right away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Specialism v. General
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Specialism v. General
The judge in this case is trying to determine whether the site was specifically designed to improve access to a particular kind of content and (the crucial part of the story) whether in doing so had been complicit in subsequent illegal activity in a jurisdiction over which the court has power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
Are you absolutely sure about that? Are you saying that I can't teach anyone how to pick locks because it's illegal to pick locks in my state? Are you saying that I can't teach anyone that taking a jug + gas + rag = crude incendiary device because it's illegal to make those crude incendiary devices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
You forgot the + government building or + your ex wife or + your bosses expensive car.
It's the end intent. Anyone with half a brain (which covers most of the people here) knows that ISOhunt has one major purpose, distribution of copyright material. It's the standard point, if you removed all the copyright material, would anyone use it? Nope.
It's like gun + bullets = weapon, while gun + bullets + address + $500 = conspiracy ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
One, all material is copyrighted.
Two, not all copyrighted material is illegal to download.
Three, ISOhunt's intent is to search torrents not to distribute anything.
"if you removed all the copyright material, would anyone use it?"
Oh, hell yes they would. It's a damn good way to get data to people quickly.
Oh, for the record, just creating a crude incendiary device will land your ass in jail, just like owning lock picking tools (pro or improvised) or picking your own lock. No intent needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
On the Ownership of Lock Picking Devices:
United States:
In United States, laws concerning possession of lockpicks vary from state to state. Generally, possession and use of lockpicks is considered equivalent to the possession of a crowbar or other tool that may or may not be used in a burglary. Illegal possession of lockpicks is generally prosecuted as a felony under the category of possession of burglary tools or similar statutes. However simple possession is completely legal as state statutes all require proof of intent.
In California, locksmiths must be licensed by the state. However simple possession is completely legal as illegal possession must be coupled with felonious or malicious intent.
European Union:
Most countries of the European Union don't regulate the possession of lockpicks. All responsibility concerning criminal or legal acts using the picks is taken by the owner of the lockpicks.
In the Netherlands, owning lock picks is legal, but using them on someone else's locks without permission is not. There is even a lock picking championship, the Dutch Open, which was reported on in the newspapers.
In United Kingdom, a person who carries a lock pick set (even a home made one) can be charged with the offence of "going equipped", unless they have a good reason for carrying them. The penalty for this can be upward of 5 years' imprisonment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Specialism v. General
To be honest, the idea that a non-physical COPY of anything is worth this much seems sort of ludicrous. No loss of any type has occurred, nothing physical has changed hands, no sale has been lost, nothing has been stolen, in fact, nothing has really happened other than someone has shared a digital file with someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Specialism v. General
Is OVguide illegal because it can link to infringing content on youtube? Is it also illegal to use Google to search for OVguide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Specialism v. General
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Specialism v. General
But remember for our AC Shills, all torrents must be bad, and Big Government knows whats good for us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally
Maybe this will send a message that you just can't imply someone did something in a law sut and you have to show there was an actual loss, just like you or I would have to do if we sued someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting...
Proof of infringement is going to be a really tough thing to show for the MPAA. Considering the burden of proof has never before been applied to the MPAA/RIAA and considering that they pretty much have balked at any attempt to provide proof in the past, it should be really interesting and entertaining to watch how this plays out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISOHunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Circumstantial evidence should be sufficient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Circumstantial evidence should be sufficient
The fact of the matter is that they have no proof or evidence at all to back themselves up with. If they are forced to prove infringement has occured using actual evidence then they will lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Circumstantial evidence should be sufficient
Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient in other cases as you say. Evidence presented in court that is circumstantial is nearly always successfully objected. The rule of law is that guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Talk to any District Attorney and they will tell you that they spend a lot of their case preparation time making sure that the case proves guilt beyond that reasonable doubt.
I see no reason why the same standard shouldn't apply for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Circumstantial evidence should be sufficient
This is why the *AAs are winning. "A preponderance of the evidence" is merely: "it is more likely that it happened than it did not" for most cases. I haven't looked ddep enough but with the awards in these cases it is possible the judges should be using the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which it appears this judge may be doing.
Oh yeah IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google and TBP are different because one is focused on the illegal downloads and the other isn't. Its the same for ISOHunt, although they do respond to takedown requests, they do nothing that mitigates the addition of stuff and are specifically set up to allow that to happen. On the other hand, Google, doesn't allow stuff to be added, but things are added via their searches, which mitigates the aiding infringment part because they only index whats already out their, vs TBP and ISO that allows people to add. So the difference is in how you mitigate.
Its about time the court asked these big content fools to show an actual loss. To date, niether the RIAA or the MPAA has shown any loss what so ever. In fact in the final Jamie Thomas trial the record lable executive put on the stand, under oath, said he did not know of a financial loss. If the real financial loss wre given in the Jammie Thomas case the award would have been like maybe $15.00. Instead, because the copyright law is so hard to understand by 12 juriors, you end up with the RIAA saying things like "there were millions downloading" implying that Jammie was some criminal mastermind behind some plot to over throw the world.
If big content was made to show what the actual loss was, their victories would be very hollow and few and far between because the juries would see "hey, they only lost $20.00, I can't even take my wife to dinner for $20.00. But they claimed millions in profit last year, and i'm having trouble paying my bills. Why should i feel sorry for them?"
But the way it is now with their inference and not showing any loss they can force the jury to rely on only the copyright law. They don't want to show an actual loss, they know what it will do to their cases. If you or i took anyone to court we would have to show some sort of loss, then why don't they? I say make them prove that every penny lost was a result of the infringment. I'm not for piracy, but i am against unfair practices of special interest, money grubbing, groups beating our courts into submission trying to turn them into money making machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, IsoHunt does not allow anyone to upload torrents, they are a search engine only. Just like Google. please learn how Isohunt works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The is is right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The judge is right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]