Judge Tells IsoHunt To Wave Magic Wand; Block All Infringement
from the good-luck-with-that dept
There are some odd statements in the ruling, including the judge claiming:
"It is axiomatic that the availability of free infringing copies of plaintiffs' works through defendants' websites irreparably undermines the growing legitimate market for consumers to purchase access to the same works,"There's just one (big) problem with that. It is not at all axiomatic. We've seen many content creators embrace file sharing as part of a legitimate market, and in doing so, make more money. So the judge is claiming something that is a universal truth that is false. That seems quite troubling.
Separately, the ruling seems to suggest that a keyword filter might stop the infringement. That takes me back. Judge Patel in the original Napster case made the same demand, and it was a disaster, because a keyword filter is useless.
But the bigger issue is that the judge seems to have gone way beyond what the law actually says and allows in this situation. The site can be barred for inducing infringement, but that doesn't mean a site automatically must block anything that might be infringing.