RSS
Is Forcing IsoHunt To Block Search Terms A First Amendment Violation?
from the legal-questions... dept
Given similar rulings, and the judge's comments so far in the IsoHunt case, I find it quite unlikely that the company has any chance of getting out from under the injunction issued against it. However, IsoHunt's lawyer, Ira Rothken (who has been involved in a few similar lawsuits), is trying to make the case that the current injunction is way too broad and a violation of the First Amendment. The argument is that the injunction bars certain searches, telling Isohunt operator Gary Fung that he cannot allow searches for certain movie titles, such as Alice in Wonderland. But, Rothken points out, the movie studios don't own that name. They may own a particular movie under that name, but using that to block all searches on the name goes beyond what the law allows:
One issue concerns how Fung should remove searches from his three search engines: Isohunt, Torrentbox and Podtropolis. The Motion Picture Association of America, which brought the case, has sent keyword searches it wants removed, like the number 10, Alice in Wonderland and Dracula, Rothken said.I'm sure that copyright system defenders will brush this off as being a pointless exercise, but he's actually got a very reasonable point. Asking for blocks on names alone seems to go well beyond what the law is supposed to allow. It's yet another example of the difference between real copyright law and file sharing copyright law. Copyright law does not allow for a block based on just a name. But, apparently "file sharing copyright law" does. And that's a problem, if you actually believe in the rule of law and interpreting the law accurately.
"One person's copyrighted Wizard of Oz is another person's public domain work," Rothken said in a brief telephone interview Tuesday. He said the movie studios should provide URLs or hashes, which would positively identify which search link should be removed.
"The motion picture studios do not have a monopoly on names on things. That is where the injunction is violating the First Amendment," he said.
I have an app...
How My First Game Made $28,623
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
I have an idea...
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
I’m looking for research...
The Growing App Market
Who Are App Developers?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
I own copyrights that deal with the letters M, P and A. I demand that you cease using those letters in your name.
Blocking the search for the number 10? WTF?! Are these lawyers on crack?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Stupid
How can so many people not understand something as simple using a search engine? It hurts my brain.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I did not know..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Smart Car Care
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Injunction vs. Copyright Law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Search term blocks are useless anyway
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just a thought here...
Now, what was that about promoting the progress...?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ISOhunt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just a thought here...
screw the progress, what about those sweet delicious studio profits?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ISOhunt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just a thought here...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Could easily be used to block protected speech
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
My question
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
There's an opportunity here...
Then the movie producers would be SO happy with the MPAA when no-one's visiting their site any more :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How the Law is Made
The law means whatever the judge says it means (at least unless and until a higher ranking judge says otherwise). Thus, this *is* real law, known as "case law".
Copyright law does not allow for a block based on just a name.
Sure it does, because the judge said so.
And that's a problem, if you actually believe in the rule of law and interpreting the law accurately.
Unless and until a higher ranking judge says otherwise, this *is* "interpreting the law accurately". That's the US legal system for you, delivering the very best justice money can buy. Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Just a thought here...
Simple! You aren't supposed to distribute stuff on your own, you're supposed to go through "the system" (e.g RIAA, MPAA, etc). So, stick with "the system" like you're supposed to and you won't have that problem!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My question
No, they're just corrupt. Judges are part of the system and most love their power and their control over others. Now file sharing (and the Internet in general) redistributes power and control away from the old system. Thus, they see it as a threat and something that should be stamped out. So they make rulings to try to do that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I did not know..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just a thought here...
Take Dracula, for example. Bram Stoker's original novel is in the public domain, as is his short story follow-up Dracula's Guest. There are many legitimate CC-licensed audiobook readings available quite legally as well as old radio shows (including one I just found on archive.org about Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula!).
The more famous film adaptations are copyrighted (Universal, Hammer, Coppola), but there are other versions that are not. there are numerous movies which have nothing to do with the original property, but are known under a cash-in title that mentions it (such as Al Adamson's infamous Dracula vs. Frankenstein). There are copyrighted stage play versions, but also uncopyrighted versions have been filmed and are available online. Yet, in order to "protect" the copyrighted works, free and legal distribution of other works (which may not be commercially viable enough to get a DVD/CD/whatever release) could disappear from the public view.
As ever, this is nothing to do with "protecting" art. It's to do with protecting a subset of copyright owners who can't be bothered to adapt to the modern world, and don't care how much other art gets lost in the process.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I did not know..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
whata buncha dusters
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ISOhunt
The case is being tried in the United States, under US law. The first amendment applies in every aspect.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IsoHunt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ISOhunt
Oh really? How's that? The case is being tried by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which is located on the western seaboard (i.e. within 100 miles of the US border). As we know, the US Supreme court has ruled that Constitutional rights don't necessarily apply within 100 miles of the border.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Are they out of their freakin' mind?!
Hahahaha
I can't even imagine this is for real!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
LIKE A GOOD ECONOMIC SLAVE
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment