Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

not quite.

the case that you might be referring to, is where a website showed a thumbnail and linked to the full size image from the remote webserver (google is in the hot seat for this right now and lost the first round to Perfect 10).

the outcome of the case, was that it was ok to show the thumb, because when you clicked on the thumbnail, it went to the webpage where the image was shown.

in RIP's case, they are linking to a remote server that doesn't have the legal rights to host/distribute those images...so it is 'illegal', but that is going by US laws.

The US does try to export its copyright/trademark/patent laws to other countries, and there might be similar laws either in the hosting country of the website, or EU has similar laws.

Investigations as to where there are similar laws in EU are needed, which will just lead up having to file a lawsuit, if/once you are able to track down the website owner.

While RIP can popup again, having the domain shutdown would be crippling for a moment, until he emails his membership about the new domain.. and hosts in a different country, still hotlinking to the file shares. And there are many RIP type websites out there, all running the same model of linking to the same file sharing websites.

It would seem better use of energy to target the filesharing sites. These kinds of sites use alot of bandwidth, so if ISP pressure to have these sites shutdown are applied, then yes, they can move to other ISP.. but having large b/w requirements, means eventually, they will host on a "friendly" ISP that won't have the b/w needed to properly supply the load.


Fight the .02!