Summary Judgement Granted in isoHunt Case

Wait a sec.
That would mean ISP's are guilty of inducing hackers to break the law.
Gun Stores would be inducing any violence done with the firearms they sell.
The mother of a rapist would be guilty of induction of rape, same for murderers.
Insurance companies are guilty of inducing deaths everyday by denying legitimate coverage.
Schools are inducing the delinquency of minor by not teaching them anything but test taking skills.

"b : to call forth or bring about by influence or stimulation" this has to be the part of the definition that allows it use in this stupid context and using this definition WE ARE ALL GUILTY.
I have a lawn and it has grass, does that make me guilty of inducing a dog to shit on it?

Yeah I robbed the store but the store owner induced me to by leaving the door open when he left.

Inducing a crime, we all would need to be in JAIL.

By the same definition a victim of rape induced the attack. This is where our legal system is going, straight to hell

Someone may be getting really rich in courts lately! They now don't even bother to act like they actually listen both sides.

MPAA will be shutting google down next.

The judge got paid off by MPAA, simple answer.

So, My question is... will they be shut down? If so, when? Don't see anything about it on the main page over at isohunt.com.

i think this may be because they are Canadian and don't give to much of a shit truly about what a U.S judge said

Wow ... all these comments about "inducement", but no one paying attention to what the LAW is. In the U.S., inducement liability is summed up in the statement "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." (from the MGM v. Grokster case). I don't know what isoHunt does or doesn't do, but if that's what they do, then they liable under this theory of law. As for summary judgment vs. a full trial - if there are no disputed FACTS, a judge may save TAXPAYER money by not requiring a full trial. Again, I don't know the facts of this case, but if there were no disputed facts, and those facts that were undisputed showed that isoHunt induced people to commit copyright infringement, then the judge did the right thing.

That is a far cry from "a victim of rape induced the attack".

While I find the laws and legal attitude towards modern digital media curmudgeonly and not in the interest of the consumer, Rusted has shared some important points. Well done! I was about to join the fray bagging on inducement until I read what he had to say. But I will say this. RIAA, MPAA, get your kicks in now because it's almost over for you. And smooth move, criminalizing your market base. Before I end my post I will briefly explore the awesomeness that these folks brought you:

1. Almost a whole 1 penny to the artist per $1 they make. Nice
2. Region encoding, the failure of digital tape
3. Those awesome commercials at movies that show people stealing DVD's and say THIS IS YOU. Just what I deserve by spending ten bucks to go the theater. Well done, idiots

One day it'll all be like iTunes and Netflix is now. But they are gonna whine and scream every step of the way there.

I hate it when someone/organization is charged in another country.
Unfortunately, our government is a bunch of pussies, so they'll likely export the guys from Isohunt to US or give charge them here, even though file sharing is legal in Canada.
It wouldn't be the first time the Americans told us to hand someone over and we pussied up and did it...

The court case was Columbia Pictures Industries v. Gary Fung. Since it was a US company that was filing and it was their property rights that were in question it makes sense that this is where they would file. Canada did not give over Gary Fung for trial and he was not extradited for a criminal case.

Anamaniac have a little pride. Canada is a good country I have been there many times and I have worked with several people from there. Like any country they have their problems but for the most part they have their act together. Most Canadians are very proud of their heritage and if you have lost that then I feel sorry for you.

Columbia will never get my business again.anyways i stopped buying any new films from hollywood.i only buy them used.

Yes, I recognise that Canada is a great country (tons of work, low crime rates etc.), but I also recognize our politicians are hampered by American politicians all too often.

A lot of judges don't understand how technology works very well. It comes down to which side is better at explaining things in very basic layman's terms, and shading the truth to their advantage.

I think this was just a time saver so they can get to the meat of the legal battle - the appeals.

Facilitate, encourage, maybe, but induce? Really?

god.... from kevin micknick's case to P2P sharing...... way to go americans.... you act like you own the world....

GJ OVERPAID BLOOD SUCKING LAWYERS... NOW YOU CAN RETIRE

Is this a civil case or criminal case?

Unfortunately, the onus of proof in civil court is a lot lower than the onus of proof in criminal court (at least in the US).

In criminal court, the onus of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt."

In civil court, the onus of proof of liability is "more likely than not."

As most people here I am no lawyer, but if inducement liability is this: "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
Then, they should NOT be charged with inducing copyright infringement. They do not promote/advertise the site as an illegal content sharing site, they just advertise as a file sharing site (and there are many "legit" ones out there).
Their only "affirmative steps" were the designing of a website to share content for USERS to use.
In short, the judge did not have enough to close the case.

BTW, if the law continue this way, software like Microsoft's Windows Media Player that rips music from the original CDs will also be charged with "inducing copyright infringement".

"In deuce"......

deuce
noun ( the deuce) informal
used as a euphemism for “devil” in expressions of annoyance, impatience, or surprise or for emphasis : how the deuce are we to make a profit? | what the deuce are you trying to do?

ahhaaa.....

-dr kopp e. wright

As someone who uses these sites a *lot*, I can (along with most of you, I would guess) attest to the fact that they are predominately used for the sharing of copyrighted material. That is their raison d'etre.