isoHunt Appeals Process Begins

from the not-so-simple dept

As we're still left scratching our heads over the US government's botched affidavit to seize Torrent-Finder, that includes numerous technical and legal errors -- and most importantly, does not take into account the First Amendment implications of domain name seizures -- it's worth remembering that a site that has a few similarities to Torrent-Finder, IsoHunt, is still involved in a legal fight concerning its operations.

While we keep hearing defenders of the domain name seizures claim that it's somehow "obvious" that Torrent-Finder is guilty of criminal copyright infringement, it pays to remember that IsoHunt, which is being charged with civil copyright infringement (which has a lower bar) has caused something of a stir in legal circles. The original ruling on IsoHunt broke some new ground in actually being one of the first (and perhaps most high profile case) to use the whole "Red Flag" claim to make IsoHunt guilty of contributory infringement. This is why lots of other cases now cite the district court's ruling in the IsoHunt case -- because it's really the only case that recognizes such "general knowledge" as removing DMCA safe harbors.

In other words, it's still a pretty open question how the courts will actually rule on this issue -- and yet Homeland Security and its supporters somehow think it's "obvious" that Torrent-Finder is even more guilty, despite a lack of any actual charges or a full trial? In its appeal, IsoHunt questions whether or not the injunctions placed by the judge in the district court ruling (who, it should be noted, still lets IsoHunt continue to exist, if in a modified form -- unlike the seizures) are violating the First Amendment in forcing search engines to somehow pre-censor their results, based on no factual evidence of infringement.

There certainly may be additional evidence that makes IsoHunt guilty of contributory infringement, but it's certainly not a clear cut question (though I can predict some folks in the comments will claim otherwise). However, considering that this legal battle is still being fought, it seems even more ridiculous for Homeland Security (or its recent college grad ICE agent) to declare that another search engine is somehow obviously guilty of criminal copyright infringement.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    average_joe (profile), 27 Dec 2010 @ 7:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I know when you start bringing up my being in law school it means you have nothing.

    "All of the evidence seems to fall apart when you look at it closely"? Utter faith-based bullshit.

    Weren't you the one who didn't even know that Fung admitted to using his own service to download files that he knew to be infringing? Good grief, I got that fact from a document that you yourself uploaded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24472378/Case-2-06-Cv-05578-Svw-Jc

    I have zero faith that you are looking at the evidence here, Mike. Why should anyone trust your analysis here? Too much of it's faith-based to be taken seriously. This hurts your credibility in general, I'm sorry to say.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.