US Court Refuses Injunction Against RapidShare As Perfect 10 Gets Legal Theories Rejected Yet Again
from the have-they-ever-won? dept
Ah, Perfect 10. The adult content company has spent the last decade or so engaged in one copyright lawsuit after another, accusing pretty much every search engine out there of copyright infringement for hosting thumbnails of images that others uploaded. It has lost repeatedly. And yet, it keeps on suing. At some point, you have to wonder if its legal budget might have been better spent on, I don't know, actually innovating and giving people a reason to buy. It looks like yet another of its legal theories isn't working out so well in court. paperbag was the first of a few of you to send in the news that the district court in California's Southern District has refused to grant an injunction against Rapidshare, suggesting that, as a mere file locker, Rapidshare would not be liable for the infringement done by its users.Amusingly, the ruling came out just a day before a bunch of US politicians tagged Rapidshare as one of the worst copyright offenders out there, and suggested sanctions should be made against Germany for not stopping Rapidshare. Funny, then, that a US court also doesn't seem to think Rapidshare is breaking copyright law...
Of course, this was just the ruling over the request for a preliminary injunction. TorrentFreak's headline jumps the gun a bit in saying a court found Rapidshare "not guilty" for infringement. It sounds like we haven't quite reached that stage yet. This was just a request for an injunction before the actual case goes to trial. That said, at this point, I can't find a copy of the actual ruling, and the only information to go off of is Rapidshare's own press release, which states "The court rejected the application in its entirety. In its ruling, the court stated that as a file-hosting company, RapidShare cannot be accused of any infringements of copyrights." That sounds like the court said Rapidshare qualified for DMCA safe harbors, but without the full ruling, we don't know for sure -- and it's entirely possible that Rapidshare is exaggerating the ruling.
If anyone has access to the actual ruling, and are willing to share it, it could be interesting (and potentially relevant to other ongoing cases, such as the Viacom v. YouTube case). Once I've seen a copy I'll either update this post or post again, if the details warrant a separate post.
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: copyright, injunction
Companies: perfect 10, rapidshare
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now we see what the U.S. have become
Alas, here in France, the situation is just worse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinion
Put up the opinion for you here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analysis
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/judge-denies-perfect-10s-tro-against-rapidshare/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Btw, I think it's funny that 1) RapidShare uses third party search sites to search its own database for infringing files and 2) probably the only thing keeping RapidShare safe is that they do not provide a search engine for their files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Actual Court Docket
On page 7 of the opinion, it clearly stated: “Direct infringement by third parties is occurring. Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s ownership of at least some of the copyrighted works at issue in Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 26 at 19.) Additionally, Plaintiff has demonstrated that its copyrighted images were uploaded onto RapidShare’s servers and are available for download. (Zada Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) RapidShare users who uploaded Plaintiff’s copyrighted images to the server violated Plaintiff’s distribution rights and any RapidShare users who may have download files containing Plaintiff’s
copyrighted images violated Plaintiff’s reproduction rights. See Napster, 239 F.3d at 1014.”
So, what you have here is a clear indication by the District court is already finding that 3rd party infringement is happening with the file sharing giant. The court is also giving a clear indication that it doesn’t jump to conclusions that are not presented by the evidence.
New media,a broad term used to encompass digital use of traditional media such as film, images, music, spoken and written word, with the computer, will find its place in this fast paced technology, computer-enabled consumer world. My prediction is that companies like the DECE (Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem) consortium and Disney-Apple Keychest “Digital Rights Storage Locker” technology will soon win the day. But they had better get this figured out soon or the courts will at some point will have to figure it out for them by giving companies like rapidshare the green light to go ahead with their illegal downloading sytems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]