Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in Perfect 10 v. RapidShare
 

LOS ANGELES—A U.S. District Court judge has denied a request for preliminary injunction in Perfect 10 v. RapidShare, a lawsuit filed late last year by the model site against the Germany-based file hosting site that alleges copyright infringement.

In her 15-page decision, District Judge Marilyn L. Huff did not deny that direct infringement of Perfect images was occurring. Neither did Rapidshare, for that matter. But the service claimed that Perfect 10 never bothered to inform it about where the infringed images were located, and because RapidShare has no search function, it was unable to find the images in order to remove them.

“RapidShare cannot locate and delete files where the only information provided is [an] image,” claimed the defendants, who stated that their Abuse Department had found and taken down “certain files whose download links were identified on the screen shots that [Perfect 10 owner Norm] Zada attached to his declaration.”

Huff ruled that Perfect 10 had thus failed to show that RapidShare had failed to take simple measures to “prevent further damages to plaintiff’s copyrighted works. Rather, the evidence suggests that RapidShare is using information provided by plaintiff to locate and remove infringing materials, and is also taking independent steps to identify, locate, and remove infringing files.”

Huff also found that RapidShare was not guilty of inducing infringing activity, despite Perfect 10’s claim that the service’s affiliate program was an inherent inducement because people who infringed got paid.

“However,” wrote Huff, “RapidShare contends that “it terminated its cash rewards program well before it filed its Jurisdictional Motions because it became concerned that program was being used by some users to promote infringement.” RapidShare also convinced the judge that it strove to eliminate infringing uses.

As noted by Ars Technica, in failing to prove its claims, Perfect 10 is at least partly to blame for its failure to make a strong enough case that the judge thought it would prevail in a trial. Further, Huff noted that Perfect 10 waited four years to file its lawsuit against RapidShare, fact that, combined with its other failures, doomed its request.

“Considering plaintiff’s apparent lack of interest in self-help measures and its delay in bringing this action, the Court concludes that, at present, the equities do not weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief.”

Perfect 10 is still expected to forge ahead with the suit.

http://business.avn.com/downloadfile...tmap_id=398105

rapidshare wins once again, its upload users time :(

and you can only send notice for removal, fuck

How can they not get rid of rapidshare? Just tell the judge to use it for 5 minutes....

Find a list of files and it goes like this....

Stolen porn
stolen porn
stolen movies
stolen movies
stolen programs


Is there anything even legal on there? Nothing ive ever noticed.

a spit into the ocean
+1

Here's another interesting point:

Let's say you start a traffic trade - you can't really be responsible for the content they might put on their site. Well, maybe the hosting company is not responsible if someone uploads something bad.

All of that is why I expected them to lose. Stupid posturing and not telling RS what files they wanted deleting. God knows how much money they are now going to carry on and throw at something they can't win.

"Rapidshare has no search function"????
What kind of hoax is this?
I thought the music and film industry had direct access to rapidshare and could delete whatever they want?

Sadly very true. P10 needed to dot the i's and cross the t's to win this.

I hope p10 loses and goes bankrupt... that's the only thing they deserve.

Norm Zadah is an idiot and a kook, i'm all on the side of copyright owners but there are laws that judges are bound by, they are weighted against copyright owners badly but you can't just go and sue based on accusations and theories even if they do seem easily understandable. you need facts, evidence, and you yourself have to follow the law to get a judge to give you consideration. Zadah basically acted like a 4 year old having a temper tantrum, he doesn't like the DMCA so didn't make proper takedown notices.

I think under the current DMCA that Rapidshare is bulletproof, legally, we all know what they're doing and how Rapidshare works but according to the law, they are doing nothing illegal and that's sad. I can't believe with such large industries such as the music and movie industries that we are still waiting 10 years later for new legislation to replace the DMCA which obviously has turned out to be a horrible law that copyright infringers gain protection from rather than the copyright owners whom it was supposed to protect.

The problem is most likely that the judge uses it everyday already. :1orglaugh