Is Forcing IsoHunt To Block Search Terms A First Amendment Violation?
from the legal-questions... dept
Given similar rulings, and the judge's comments so far in the IsoHunt case, I find it quite unlikely that the company has any chance of getting out from under the injunction issued against it. However, IsoHunt's lawyer, Ira Rothken (who has been involved in a few similar lawsuits), is trying to make the case that the current injunction is way too broad and a violation of the First Amendment. The argument is that the injunction bars certain searches, telling Isohunt operator Gary Fung that he cannot allow searches for certain movie titles, such as Alice in Wonderland. But, Rothken points out, the movie studios don't own that name. They may own a particular movie under that name, but using that to block all searches on the name goes beyond what the law allows:One issue concerns how Fung should remove searches from his three search engines: Isohunt, Torrentbox and Podtropolis. The Motion Picture Association of America, which brought the case, has sent keyword searches it wants removed, like the number 10, Alice in Wonderland and Dracula, Rothken said.I'm sure that copyright system defenders will brush this off as being a pointless exercise, but he's actually got a very reasonable point. Asking for blocks on names alone seems to go well beyond what the law is supposed to allow. It's yet another example of the difference between real copyright law and file sharing copyright law. Copyright law does not allow for a block based on just a name. But, apparently "file sharing copyright law" does. And that's a problem, if you actually believe in the rule of law and interpreting the law accurately.
"One person's copyrighted Wizard of Oz is another person's public domain work," Rothken said in a brief telephone interview Tuesday. He said the movie studios should provide URLs or hashes, which would positively identify which search link should be removed.
"The motion picture studios do not have a monopoly on names on things. That is where the injunction is violating the First Amendment," he said.
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: first amendment, free speech, names, search
Companies: isohunt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I own copyrights that deal with the letters M, P and A. I demand that you cease using those letters in your name.
Blocking the search for the number 10? WTF?! Are these lawyers on crack?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
How can so many people not understand something as simple using a search engine? It hurts my brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did not know..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I did not know..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I did not know..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smart Car Care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Injunction vs. Copyright Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search term blocks are useless anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought here...
Now, what was that about promoting the progress...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a thought here...
screw the progress, what about those sweet delicious studio profits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a thought here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a thought here...
Simple! You aren't supposed to distribute stuff on your own, you're supposed to go through "the system" (e.g RIAA, MPAA, etc). So, stick with "the system" like you're supposed to and you won't have that problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a thought here...
Take Dracula, for example. Bram Stoker's original novel is in the public domain, as is his short story follow-up Dracula's Guest. There are many legitimate CC-licensed audiobook readings available quite legally as well as old radio shows (including one I just found on archive.org about Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula!).
The more famous film adaptations are copyrighted (Universal, Hammer, Coppola), but there are other versions that are not. there are numerous movies which have nothing to do with the original property, but are known under a cash-in title that mentions it (such as Al Adamson's infamous Dracula vs. Frankenstein). There are copyrighted stage play versions, but also uncopyrighted versions have been filmed and are available online. Yet, in order to "protect" the copyrighted works, free and legal distribution of other works (which may not be commercially viable enough to get a DVD/CD/whatever release) could disappear from the public view.
As ever, this is nothing to do with "protecting" art. It's to do with protecting a subset of copyright owners who can't be bothered to adapt to the modern world, and don't care how much other art gets lost in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISOhunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISOhunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISOhunt
The case is being tried in the United States, under US law. The first amendment applies in every aspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ISOhunt
Oh really? How's that? The case is being tried by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which is located on the western seaboard (i.e. within 100 miles of the US border). As we know, the US Supreme court has ruled that Constitutional rights don't necessarily apply within 100 miles of the border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could easily be used to block protected speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My question
No, they're just corrupt. Judges are part of the system and most love their power and their control over others. Now file sharing (and the Internet in general) redistributes power and control away from the old system. Thus, they see it as a threat and something that should be stamped out. So they make rulings to try to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's an opportunity here...
Then the movie producers would be SO happy with the MPAA when no-one's visiting their site any more :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How the Law is Made
The law means whatever the judge says it means (at least unless and until a higher ranking judge says otherwise). Thus, this *is* real law, known as "case law".
Copyright law does not allow for a block based on just a name.
Sure it does, because the judge said so.
And that's a problem, if you actually believe in the rule of law and interpreting the law accurately.
Unless and until a higher ranking judge says otherwise, this *is* "interpreting the law accurately". That's the US legal system for you, delivering the very best justice money can buy. Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whata buncha dusters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IsoHunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they out of their freakin' mind?!
Hahahaha
I can't even imagine this is for real!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LIKE A GOOD ECONOMIC SLAVE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]