BitTorrent Site Liable for Copyright Infringement & No DMCA Safe Harbor

[pornlaw]

http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0313//10-55946

Major points --

P2P sites are not generally protected by the DMCA's Safe Harbor & in this case the owner of the P2P sites was liable for contributory copyright infringement under a theory of inducement...

Its a long read but very interesting (at least for lawyers)...

IMHO Some of the discussion about Safe Harbor might be applicable to tubesites as well...

[signupdamnit]

summary*

copyright

the panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district
court?s judgment in favor of film studios, which alleged that
the services offered and websites maintained by the
defendants induced third parties to download infringing
copies of the studios? copyrighted works.

Affirming the district court?s summary judgment, the
panel held that under metro-goldwyn-mayer studios, inc. V.
Grokster ltd., 545 u.s. 913 (2005), the defendants were
liable for contributory copyright infringement on an
inducement theory because the plaintiffs established (1)
distribution of a device or product, (2) acts of infringement,
(3) an object of promoting the product?s use to infringe
copyright, and (4) causation in the defendants? use of the
peer-to-peer file sharing protocol known as bittorrent.
The panel held that the defendants were not entitled to
protection from liability under any of the safe harbor
provisions of the digital millennium copyright act,
including safe harbors provided by 17 u.s.c. § 512(a), (c),
*

this summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Columbia pictures industries v . Fung
3
and (d) for transitory digital network communications,
information residing on systems or networks at direction of
users, and information location tools. The panel nonetheless
rejected the argument that inducement liability is inherently
incompatible with protection under the safe harbors.
Reversing and modifying in part the district court?s
permanent injunction, the panel held that certain provisions
of the injunction were too vague to meet the notice
requirements of fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), and certain provisions
were unduly burdensome.

12345678

[L-Pink]

Nice.

.

[adultmobile]

It say no safe harbor if site is "promoting the product?s use to infringe copyright", perhaps the main point it is, Google Drive or Dropbox does not promote mostly to be used to infringe copyright, while a pirate site obviously it is (obviously...in a legal sense, does not exist lol).