Remember last year, when ASCAP and BMI suddenly started claiming that the 30-second previews in iTunes and other online music stores should count as public performances for which they should be compensated? Yeah, that didn't get very far, as the courts shut that down quickly.
The link you provided for the "courts shut that down quickly" is to a story about a court, singular, saying that a ringtone was not a public performances. Do you actually have a story where a court said a 30-second preview was not a public performance? Thanks.
I know when you start bringing up my being in law school it means you have nothing.
"All of the evidence seems to fall apart when you look at it closely"? Utter faith-based bullshit.
Weren't you the one who didn't even know that Fung admitted to using his own service to download files that he knew to be infringing? Good grief, I got that fact from a document that you yourself uploaded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24472378/Case-2-06-Cv-05578-Svw-Jc
I have zero faith that you are looking at the evidence here, Mike. Why should anyone trust your analysis here? Too much of it's faith-based to be taken seriously. This hurts your credibility in general, I'm sorry to say.
Great. Thanks. I had not seen that part. That's all I was asking for.
Now, I would like to ask some simple questions in response: (1) How did he know that those works were infringing? (2) How would he go about removing those works?
Thanks.
Such a silly game, Mike.
He admitted they were infringing. How did he know? I dunno, Mike. Maybe because it was obvious. If there was any doubt, why would he admit they were copyrighted while under oath?
How would he remove them? He would go into his service and remove the file. And yes, Mike, he would remove the dot-torrent file. How else?
Your need to exculpate Fung screams of desperation to me.
You made a clear statement that he had admitted to personally downloading infringing material. Yet you failed to present evidence of that claim.
And just so you don't go saying I didn't back up my claim... From the order granting summary judgment: "In his deposition, Defendant Fung admitted to using the Isohunt website to download copyrighted broadcast television shows such as The Simpsons and Lost. (SUF, ¶¶ 2, 57, 122.) Similarly, Fung admitted to downloading the copyrighted film The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. (SUF, ¶ 58.)"
Now, just in case you don't know, "SUF" means "Statement of Undisputed Facts." As the name suggests, these are the facts that are in evidence that are not disputed. So not only am I quoting the district court, the district court is quoting the undisputed facts in the case. Add to that the fact that Fung didn't challenged this fact in his opposition brief or on appeal, and I've proved this point more than sufficiently. You simply cannot rebut this fact.
Now that I have proved that Fung admitted that he downloaded specific infringing works, what is your reply to this proof? I'll be waiting, Mike.
You always claim that you only believe in evidence and that you abhor faith-based claims. Yet, as far as I can tell, with Fung you are ignoring all of the evidence and you're grasping at straws. Why are you unable to just admit that he's a pirate? It appears to me that you don't know evidence when it's smacking you right in the face. If that's the case, why should we ever believe you when you claim something is backed by evidence? Do you even know what evidence is, Mike? Apparently not.
LOL! Mike, you are something else. You will absolutely defend Fung to the grave no matter how much evidence is presented to you. You do not care about what's true. That much is entirely evident.
The comments about "stealing" were both taken out of context, and the latter one is really unfair because Fung was being legally accurate instating infringement is not stealing. Do you really think a statement that is legally accurate should be proof of inducement? The comment about leachers and such was not referring to infringement, and simply showed the judge was not aware of the basic terminology of bittorrent.
Even if a couple of quotes were taken out of context, that does not negate the other facts. What about ALL of the other facts? Facts that were admitted to under oath. Facts that were unrebutted at summary judgment. Facts that are not challenged on appeal. Those facts, Mike. ALL of those FACTS.
As for linking to infringing material being infringement, I will note that the very first commenter on this thread -- someone who has repeatedly supported your position and attacked me as a pirate -- links to something that very well may be infringing material. Do you believe I should be turning his info over for inducing infringement?
Irrelevant. We're not talking about "Anonymous," Mike, we're talking about Fung. Don't change the subject. That's got nothing to do with ALL of the FACTS here.
Everything else is also extremely circumstantial. Helping people figure out how to use his search engine or pointing them to software that's widely available? How is that evidence of infringement?
Nonsense. Your ability to skip over all the incriminating evidence is legendary. He helped people locate, download, and burn videos that he knew to be infringing, such as Lord of the Rings, Star Trek Enterprise, Matrix Reloaded, and Pirates of the Caribbean. That is precisely the type of evidence that gets one found liable for inducement infringement. And don't forget ALL of the other FACTS.
You made a clear statement that he had admitted to personally downloading infringing material. Yet you failed to present evidence of that claim.
Wrong again. I posted the quote from the district court that explicitly stated this. Note that Fung did not refute this finding in his opposition to summary judgment memo, nor in his lengthy appeal. If he thought it was in error, he would have challenged it in the memo or on appeal. He did not. Explain that, Mike. And don't forget ALL of the other FACTS.
Again, you seem to think (falsely) that I would defend Fung no matter what. That's not the case. If there was full evidence that he was engaged in copyright infringement, I would not. There may be such evidence, in fact. I'm just pointing out that you seem to be reading much more into the evidence than is there.
OMG, are you serious? You have done nothing but prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you will defend Fung no matter what. No evidence? You have to be kidding me. I wish you were kidding me. Sadly, you are not.
How do you explain the fact that he had categories on his front page like "box office movies." He would include a list of the current top 20 movies in the theaters at the moment, and he would include a link for each of those movies for people to upload a torrent file for each one. Sometimes when a movie wasn't getting uploaded like he wanted, he would create a separate page just for that movie trying to get people to upload it. This was admitted under oath and not challenged at summary judgment or on appeal.
EXPLAIN that fact, Mike.
Good grief, Mike. You are a piece of work. You clearly have zero interest in espousing the truth about Fung. Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.
It's an interesting case, though it's not really relevant in this particular instance.
Huh? You and I seem to read the same caselaw but come away with different takes. I have hardly seen a case or a law journal article on the subject that didn't include a reference to Name.Space. Here's why...
The Second Circuit in Name.Space first laid down this rule: "Domain names and gTLDs per se are neither automatically entitled to nor excluded from the protections of the First Amendment, and the appropriate inquiry is one that fully addresses particular circumstances presented with respect to each domain name." In other words, without a case-by-case analysis of the domain name, you cannot say that it is or is not per se protected by the First Amendment.
And then they listed factors to consider when determining whether or not a domain name is speech. This includes, "particularistic, context-sensitive . . . analyses of the domain name itself, the way the domain name is being used, the motivations of the author of the website in question, [and] the contents of the website."
More on point to our discussion here the Second Circuit could hardly have been. That's why I pointed you to it.
IsoHunt's appeal points out how the district courts's ruling is in error. So good job quoting old news.
Old news? You wish. That is the CURRENT judgment in the case. LOL! You guys are so desperate to not admit that Fung is a pirate. It cracks me up.
I read Fung's appellate brief, and I thought it was poorly drafted and completely void of compelling arguments. You do realize the appellate court probably won't even take the case, right?
You don't really think that because Fung's lawyer filed an appeal that it changes anything, do you? LOL! And you do realize that many of those FACTS I quoted from the order were NOT REBUTTED, don't you?
LOL! Old news... Awesome! Would it kill any one you to admit that Fung's a pirate? You all can't be that blind, can you?
In addition to the general structure of the pages maintained by Defendants, Defendant Fung has personally made a number of statements regarding the copyrighted nature of the works available on his sites. In one such post on the Isohunt website Defendant Fung responded to a user's post by stating "they accuse us for [sic] thieves, and they r [sic] right. Only we r [sic] 'stealing' from the lechers (them) and not the originators (artists)." (SUF, at ¶ 14.) In an interview Fung stated: "Morally, I'm a Christian. 'Thou shalt not steal.' But to me, even copyright infringement when it occurs may not necessarily be stealing." (Id. at ¶ 15.) In another post Fung stated: "We completely oppose RIAA & Co. so do not be alarmed by our indexing activities. . . ." (Id. at ¶ 18.) In another interview Fung also stated that users were attracted to his website by the availability of a blockbuster film of the time, The Da Vinci Code.
(Id. at ¶ 20.) Fung's other statements included references to aiding individuals in the download of then-popular movie titles such as Matrix Reloaded and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, pointing users to links where they could download copies of these movies through the torrent sites. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-29.) Other statements made on the website encouraged or made [*13] available the downloading of illegal content by users who were browsing the discussion forums on Fung's websites. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-46.) Plaintiffs also provide details relating to the assistance that Fung would give website users in downloading copyrighted material within the forum discussions of the various websites. In one such instance, in response to a user query on how to make a DVD from a downloaded copy of the film Pirates of the Caribbean, Fung provided a link to a website that would allow the individual to burn a DVD of the downloaded copy. (SUF, at 68.) Fung provided users with assistance on a number of occasions regarding how they could go about playing or extracting the copyrighted films that they downloaded from the Defendants' websites. (Id. at 70, 72.) Fung also provided assistance to a user who was searching for episodes of the television series Star Trek: Enterprise; Fung provided links to search possible search queries that would turn up the work. (Id. at 71.) Fung also provided technical advice regarding the use of "trackers" in response to emails containing dot-torrent files connected with copyrighted television programs, such as the NBC series The Office. (Id. at 79.)
And this:
The clearest instance of Defendants' solicitation of infringing activity is the "Box Office Movies" feature of Defendants' Isohunt site. As Defendant Fung admitted in his deposition, this feature essentially involved Defendants' periodic posting of a list of the top 20 highest-grossing films then playing in United States, which linked to detailed web-pages concerning each film.20 Each of these pages contained "upload torrent" links allowing users to upload dot-torrent files for the films. Though Defendants eventually discontinued this feature, they did not remove pages that had already been created. (SUF, ¶¶ 50-55.) By implementing this feature, therefore, Defendants engaged in direct solicitation of infringing activity.
And this:
Defendant Fung made statements on the Isohunt website encouraging or assisting infringement. He posted on his website a message telling the website's users that they should "try Peer Guardian," a software application that can be used to frustrate copyright enforcement against file sharers. (SUF, ¶ 94.) Accord Grokster III, 545 U.S. at 937-38 . Fung also provided a link to a torrent file for the recent film Lord of the Rings: Return of the King on the Isohunt site and stated, "if you are curious, download this." (SUF, ¶ 29.) Additionally, Fung created a promotional page inviting users to upload torrent files for Matrix Reloaded, another recent film. (SUF, ¶ 28.)
And this:
Defendant Fung personally posted messages in the Isohunt discussion forums in which he provided technical assistance to users seeking copyrighted works. Specifically, in response to an Isohunt user who posted a message stating he did not know how to watch a file containing Lord of the Rings: Return of the King which he had recently downloaded, Defendant Fung provided directions on how to extract and play the video file. (SUF, ¶ 69.) The record is replete with such instances of technical assistance provided to users by Defendant Fung through the forum. (See, e.g., SUF, ¶ 70 (Fung provided technical assistant to users who downloaded the film Kill Bill); SUF, ¶ 71 (Fung provided assistance to user searching for Star Trek: Enterprise episodes by giving search tips); SUF, ¶ 79 (Fung explained how to attach a tracker URL to a dot-torrent file sent to him by an Isohunt user, and recommended the user use the tracker at torrentbox.com).)
And this:
Even under this stringent "willful ignorance" test, it is apparent that Defendants have "turned a blind eye to 'red flags' of obvious infringement." See H.R. Rep. 105-551(II), at 57. Most importantly, Defendant Fung himself has engaged in unauthorized downloads of copyrighted material; even if those downloads were done abroad and were not actionable under United States copyright law (and thus would not provide "actual knowledge" of illegal activity for purposes of 17 U.S.C. § 512(d)(1)(A) ), Fung's actions show that Fung was aware that infringing material was available on the Defendant websites. Given the "worldwide" nature of the world-wide web, it would have been obvious that United States-based users could access these same infringing materials and thus engage in infringing acts. Defendants provide no evidence to rebut this obvious conclusion that United States-based users would have been able to download the same copyrighted works that Fung himself downloaded.
Let's see you rebut all of that, Mike. And there's plenty more where that came from.
Or do you care to admit that you were wrong and Fung did not run an innocent search engine?
You're playing silly games. He admitted under oath in a deposition that he used his own website to download files that he knew to be infringing. I don't know what the names of those files were, so let's call them x, y, and z. Once he knows that x, y, and z were available on his website, it became his duty to remove them. He did not. All of your games cannot negative this simple fact.
I agree about the expectation of privacy aspect. It still seems to be copyright infringement for Google to forward the images, though. Unless, of course, it's fair use--which I think it is.
It's strange that Perfect 10 includes a copy of the allegedly infringed work in their takedown notices in the first place, since the DMCA does not require it. If they're so worried about their IP, why would they include high-res copies unless they had to?
Regardless of that, I think Google's passing along the images to Chilling Effects is prima facie infringement. However, given Chilling Effect's transformative use of the material for scholarly research, I think it's fair use.
There is no content to download from isohunt. At best, there are .torrent files that in turn point to the content, but no actual content is hosted there.
Nonsense. Dot-torrent files have only one purpose--to download the full torrent. The court wasn't tricked by that argument. Believe it or not, federal judges are a rather bright bunch.
The only count Fung was found guilty was based on the evidence that he had specific knowledge of infringing content, and nothing else. The fact that you gloss over this, painting him as a "pirate king" (you're kidding me right?) for running a search engine that he commented on infringing .torrent files amazes me.
Well, obviously you didn't read the court's opinion granting summary judgment against Fung. He was found liable, not guilty, of inducement infringement. The judge did not analyze his liability for contributory or vicarious infringement since that analysis would have been superfluous.
I'm not glossing over anything, Modplan. You just don't know what you're talking about. Fung had millions of users who were downloading torrents of which 95% were infringing. Yeah, right, he's not a pirate king. You guys will say anything to defend these pirates. It's amusing.
I'll just go ahead and point out the obvious problem in your logic, if not for you then for others. Your liability for the infringement would be created when the user made the infringing post. Your TOS doesn't indemnify you from liability to third-parties who were not bound to your TOS when the liability was incurred, nor could it.
By the way, it cracks me up that you think a Nevada District Court judgment wouldn't be enforceable against you. Best of luck with that. And do you really not have a DMCA agent? Good luck with that too.
On the post: Canadian Music Collection Society Demanding Payment For 30 Second Song Previews
The link you provided for the "courts shut that down quickly" is to a story about a court, singular, saying that a ringtone was not a public performances. Do you actually have a story where a court said a 30-second preview was not a public performance? Thanks.
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"All of the evidence seems to fall apart when you look at it closely"? Utter faith-based bullshit.
Weren't you the one who didn't even know that Fung admitted to using his own service to download files that he knew to be infringing? Good grief, I got that fact from a document that you yourself uploaded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24472378/Case-2-06-Cv-05578-Svw-Jc
I have zero faith that you are looking at the evidence here, Mike. Why should anyone trust your analysis here? Too much of it's faith-based to be taken seriously. This hurts your credibility in general, I'm sorry to say.
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, I would like to ask some simple questions in response: (1) How did he know that those works were infringing? (2) How would he go about removing those works?
Thanks.
Such a silly game, Mike.
He admitted they were infringing. How did he know? I dunno, Mike. Maybe because it was obvious. If there was any doubt, why would he admit they were copyrighted while under oath?
How would he remove them? He would go into his service and remove the file. And yes, Mike, he would remove the dot-torrent file. How else?
Your need to exculpate Fung screams of desperation to me.
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And just so you don't go saying I didn't back up my claim... From the order granting summary judgment: "In his deposition, Defendant Fung admitted to using the Isohunt website to download copyrighted broadcast television shows such as The Simpsons and Lost. (SUF, ¶¶ 2, 57, 122.) Similarly, Fung admitted to downloading the copyrighted film The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. (SUF, ¶ 58.)"
Now, just in case you don't know, "SUF" means "Statement of Undisputed Facts." As the name suggests, these are the facts that are in evidence that are not disputed. So not only am I quoting the district court, the district court is quoting the undisputed facts in the case. Add to that the fact that Fung didn't challenged this fact in his opposition brief or on appeal, and I've proved this point more than sufficiently. You simply cannot rebut this fact.
Now that I have proved that Fung admitted that he downloaded specific infringing works, what is your reply to this proof? I'll be waiting, Mike.
You always claim that you only believe in evidence and that you abhor faith-based claims. Yet, as far as I can tell, with Fung you are ignoring all of the evidence and you're grasping at straws. Why are you unable to just admit that he's a pirate? It appears to me that you don't know evidence when it's smacking you right in the face. If that's the case, why should we ever believe you when you claim something is backed by evidence? Do you even know what evidence is, Mike? Apparently not.
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The comments about "stealing" were both taken out of context, and the latter one is really unfair because Fung was being legally accurate instating infringement is not stealing. Do you really think a statement that is legally accurate should be proof of inducement? The comment about leachers and such was not referring to infringement, and simply showed the judge was not aware of the basic terminology of bittorrent.
Even if a couple of quotes were taken out of context, that does not negate the other facts. What about ALL of the other facts? Facts that were admitted to under oath. Facts that were unrebutted at summary judgment. Facts that are not challenged on appeal. Those facts, Mike. ALL of those FACTS.
As for linking to infringing material being infringement, I will note that the very first commenter on this thread -- someone who has repeatedly supported your position and attacked me as a pirate -- links to something that very well may be infringing material. Do you believe I should be turning his info over for inducing infringement?
Irrelevant. We're not talking about "Anonymous," Mike, we're talking about Fung. Don't change the subject. That's got nothing to do with ALL of the FACTS here.
Everything else is also extremely circumstantial. Helping people figure out how to use his search engine or pointing them to software that's widely available? How is that evidence of infringement?
Nonsense. Your ability to skip over all the incriminating evidence is legendary. He helped people locate, download, and burn videos that he knew to be infringing, such as Lord of the Rings, Star Trek Enterprise, Matrix Reloaded, and Pirates of the Caribbean. That is precisely the type of evidence that gets one found liable for inducement infringement. And don't forget ALL of the other FACTS.
You made a clear statement that he had admitted to personally downloading infringing material. Yet you failed to present evidence of that claim.
Wrong again. I posted the quote from the district court that explicitly stated this. Note that Fung did not refute this finding in his opposition to summary judgment memo, nor in his lengthy appeal. If he thought it was in error, he would have challenged it in the memo or on appeal. He did not. Explain that, Mike. And don't forget ALL of the other FACTS.
Again, you seem to think (falsely) that I would defend Fung no matter what. That's not the case. If there was full evidence that he was engaged in copyright infringement, I would not. There may be such evidence, in fact. I'm just pointing out that you seem to be reading much more into the evidence than is there.
OMG, are you serious? You have done nothing but prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you will defend Fung no matter what. No evidence? You have to be kidding me. I wish you were kidding me. Sadly, you are not.
How do you explain the fact that he had categories on his front page like "box office movies." He would include a list of the current top 20 movies in the theaters at the moment, and he would include a link for each of those movies for people to upload a torrent file for each one. Sometimes when a movie wasn't getting uploaded like he wanted, he would create a separate page just for that movie trying to get people to upload it. This was admitted under oath and not challenged at summary judgment or on appeal.
EXPLAIN that fact, Mike.
Good grief, Mike. You are a piece of work. You clearly have zero interest in espousing the truth about Fung. Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.
On the post: Full Homeland Security Affidavit To Seize Domains Riddled With Technical & Legal Errors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: commercial speech
Happy Holidays to you as well. I'm in the middle of assembling a bike from Santa. :)
On the post: Full Homeland Security Affidavit To Seize Domains Riddled With Technical & Legal Errors
Re: Re: Re: Re: commercial speech
Huh? You and I seem to read the same caselaw but come away with different takes. I have hardly seen a case or a law journal article on the subject that didn't include a reference to Name.Space. Here's why...
The Second Circuit in Name.Space first laid down this rule: "Domain names and gTLDs per se are neither automatically entitled to nor excluded from the protections of the First Amendment, and the appropriate inquiry is one that fully addresses particular circumstances presented with respect to each domain name." In other words, without a case-by-case analysis of the domain name, you cannot say that it is or is not per se protected by the First Amendment.
And then they listed factors to consider when determining whether or not a domain name is speech. This includes, "particularistic, context-sensitive . . . analyses of the domain name itself, the way the domain name is being used, the motivations of the author of the website in question, [and] the contents of the website."
More on point to our discussion here the Second Circuit could hardly have been. That's why I pointed you to it.
On the post: Full Homeland Security Affidavit To Seize Domains Riddled With Technical & Legal Errors
Re: Re: commercial speech
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re:
Old news? You wish. That is the CURRENT judgment in the case. LOL! You guys are so desperate to not admit that Fung is a pirate. It cracks me up.
I read Fung's appellate brief, and I thought it was poorly drafted and completely void of compelling arguments. You do realize the appellate court probably won't even take the case, right?
You don't really think that because Fung's lawyer filed an appeal that it changes anything, do you? LOL! And you do realize that many of those FACTS I quoted from the order were NOT REBUTTED, don't you?
LOL! Old news... Awesome! Would it kill any one you to admit that Fung's a pirate? You all can't be that blind, can you?
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: RE:
I forgot to indicate the source of those quotes I posted. They came from the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment: http://www.ipinbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Columbia-Pictures-v-Fung.pdf
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re:
It's absolutely laughable how you guys defend Fung. LOL! Anything but admit he's a pirate, right? You guys are so freaking hilarious.
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see you refute ALL of this:
In addition to the general structure of the pages maintained by Defendants, Defendant Fung has personally made a number of statements regarding the copyrighted nature of the works available on his sites. In one such post on the Isohunt website Defendant Fung responded to a user's post by stating "they accuse us for [sic] thieves, and they r [sic] right. Only we r [sic] 'stealing' from the lechers (them) and not the originators (artists)." (SUF, at ¶ 14.) In an interview Fung stated: "Morally, I'm a Christian. 'Thou shalt not steal.' But to me, even copyright infringement when it occurs may not necessarily be stealing." (Id. at ¶ 15.) In another post Fung stated: "We completely oppose RIAA & Co. so do not be alarmed by our indexing activities. . . ." (Id. at ¶ 18.) In another interview Fung also stated that users were attracted to his website by the availability of a blockbuster film of the time, The Da Vinci Code.
(Id. at ¶ 20.) Fung's other statements included references to aiding individuals in the download of then-popular movie titles such as Matrix Reloaded and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, pointing users to links where they could download copies of these movies through the torrent sites. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-29.) Other statements made on the website encouraged or made [*13] available the downloading of illegal content by users who were browsing the discussion forums on Fung's websites. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-46.) Plaintiffs also provide details relating to the assistance that Fung would give website users in downloading copyrighted material within the forum discussions of the various websites. In one such instance, in response to a user query on how to make a DVD from a downloaded copy of the film Pirates of the Caribbean, Fung provided a link to a website that would allow the individual to burn a DVD of the downloaded copy. (SUF, at 68.) Fung provided users with assistance on a number of occasions regarding how they could go about playing or extracting the copyrighted films that they downloaded from the Defendants' websites. (Id. at 70, 72.) Fung also provided assistance to a user who was searching for episodes of the television series Star Trek: Enterprise; Fung provided links to search possible search queries that would turn up the work. (Id. at 71.) Fung also provided technical advice regarding the use of "trackers" in response to emails containing dot-torrent files connected with copyrighted television programs, such as the NBC series The Office. (Id. at 79.)
And this:
The clearest instance of Defendants' solicitation of infringing activity is the "Box Office Movies" feature of Defendants' Isohunt site. As Defendant Fung admitted in his deposition, this feature essentially involved Defendants' periodic posting of a list of the top 20 highest-grossing films then playing in United States, which linked to detailed web-pages concerning each film.20 Each of these pages contained "upload torrent" links allowing users to upload dot-torrent files for the films. Though Defendants eventually discontinued this feature, they did not remove pages that had already been created. (SUF, ¶¶ 50-55.) By implementing this feature, therefore, Defendants engaged in direct solicitation of infringing activity.
And this:
Defendant Fung made statements on the Isohunt website encouraging or assisting infringement. He posted on his website a message telling the website's users that they should "try Peer Guardian," a software application that can be used to frustrate copyright enforcement against file sharers. (SUF, ¶ 94.) Accord Grokster III, 545 U.S. at 937-38 . Fung also provided a link to a torrent file for the recent film Lord of the Rings: Return of the King on the Isohunt site and stated, "if you are curious, download this." (SUF, ¶ 29.) Additionally, Fung created a promotional page inviting users to upload torrent files for Matrix Reloaded, another recent film. (SUF, ¶ 28.)
And this:
Defendant Fung personally posted messages in the Isohunt discussion forums in which he provided technical assistance to users seeking copyrighted works. Specifically, in response to an Isohunt user who posted a message stating he did not know how to watch a file containing Lord of the Rings: Return of the King which he had recently downloaded, Defendant Fung provided directions on how to extract and play the video file. (SUF, ¶ 69.) The record is replete with such instances of technical assistance provided to users by Defendant Fung through the forum. (See, e.g., SUF, ¶ 70 (Fung provided technical assistant to users who downloaded the film Kill Bill); SUF, ¶ 71 (Fung provided assistance to user searching for Star Trek: Enterprise episodes by giving search tips); SUF, ¶ 79 (Fung explained how to attach a tracker URL to a dot-torrent file sent to him by an Isohunt user, and recommended the user use the tracker at torrentbox.com).)
And this:
Even under this stringent "willful ignorance" test, it is apparent that Defendants have "turned a blind eye to 'red flags' of obvious infringement." See H.R. Rep. 105-551(II), at 57. Most importantly, Defendant Fung himself has engaged in unauthorized downloads of copyrighted material; even if those downloads were done abroad and were not actionable under United States copyright law (and thus would not provide "actual knowledge" of illegal activity for purposes of 17 U.S.C. § 512(d)(1)(A) ), Fung's actions show that Fung was aware that infringing material was available on the Defendant websites. Given the "worldwide" nature of the world-wide web, it would have been obvious that United States-based users could access these same infringing materials and thus engage in infringing acts. Defendants provide no evidence to rebut this obvious conclusion that United States-based users would have been able to download the same copyrighted works that Fung himself downloaded.
Let's see you rebut all of that, Mike. And there's plenty more where that came from.
Or do you care to admit that you were wrong and Fung did not run an innocent search engine?
I'll be waiting, Mike.
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're playing silly games. He admitted under oath in a deposition that he used his own website to download files that he knew to be infringing. I don't know what the names of those files were, so let's call them x, y, and z. Once he knows that x, y, and z were available on his website, it became his duty to remove them. He did not. All of your games cannot negative this simple fact.
On the post: Perfect 10 Claiming That Passing Along Its DMCA Notices Is, Itself, Infringing
Re: Re:
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Perfect 10 Claiming That Passing Along Its DMCA Notices Is, Itself, Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Perfect 10 Claiming That Passing Along Its DMCA Notices Is, Itself, Infringing
Regardless of that, I think Google's passing along the images to Chilling Effects is prima facie infringement. However, given Chilling Effect's transformative use of the material for scholarly research, I think it's fair use.
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. Dot-torrent files have only one purpose--to download the full torrent. The court wasn't tricked by that argument. Believe it or not, federal judges are a rather bright bunch.
The only count Fung was found guilty was based on the evidence that he had specific knowledge of infringing content, and nothing else. The fact that you gloss over this, painting him as a "pirate king" (you're kidding me right?) for running a search engine that he commented on infringing .torrent files amazes me.
Well, obviously you didn't read the court's opinion granting summary judgment against Fung. He was found liable, not guilty, of inducement infringement. The judge did not analyze his liability for contributory or vicarious infringement since that analysis would have been superfluous.
I'm not glossing over anything, Modplan. You just don't know what you're talking about. Fung had millions of users who were downloading torrents of which 95% were infringing. Yeah, right, he's not a pirate king. You guys will say anything to defend these pirates. It's amusing.
On the post: New Newspaper Business Model: Create Compelling Graphic, Wait For Others To Use It... And Then Sue
Re: I don't agree
By the way, it cracks me up that you think a Nevada District Court judgment wouldn't be enforceable against you. Best of luck with that. And do you really not have a DMCA agent? Good luck with that too.
On the post: New Newspaper Business Model: Create Compelling Graphic, Wait For Others To Use It... And Then Sue
Re: I don't agree
Next >>