Ah, Perfect 10. The adult content company has spent the last decade or so engaged in one copyright lawsuit after another, accusing pretty much every search engine out there of copyright infringement for hosting thumbnails of images that others uploaded. It has lost repeatedly. And yet, it keeps on suing. At some point, you have to wonder if its legal budget might have been better spent on, I don’t know, actually innovating and giving people a reason to buy. It looks like yet another of its legal theories isn’t working out so well in court. paperbag was the first of a few of you to send in the news that the district court in California’s Southern District has refused to grant an injunction against Rapidshare, suggesting that, as a mere file locker, Rapidshare would not be liable for the infringement done by its users.
Amusingly, the ruling came out just a day before a bunch of US politicians tagged Rapidshare as one of the worst copyright offenders out there, and suggested sanctions should be made against Germany for not stopping Rapidshare. Funny, then, that a US court also doesn’t seem to think Rapidshare is breaking copyright law…
Of course, this was just the ruling over the request for a preliminary injunction. TorrentFreak’s headline jumps the gun a bit in saying a court found Rapidshare “not guilty” for infringement. It sounds like we haven’t quite reached that stage yet. This was just a request for an injunction before the actual case goes to trial. That said, at this point, I can’t find a copy of the actual ruling, and the only information to go off of is Rapidshare’s own press release, which states “The court rejected the application in its entirety. In its ruling, the court stated that as a file-hosting company, RapidShare cannot be accused of any infringements of copyrights.” That sounds like the court said Rapidshare qualified for DMCA safe harbors, but without the full ruling, we don’t know for sure — and it’s entirely possible that Rapidshare is exaggerating the ruling.
If anyone has access to the actual ruling, and are willing to share it, it could be interesting (and potentially relevant to other ongoing cases, such as the Viacom v. YouTube case). Once I’ve seen a copy I’ll either update this post or post again, if the details warrant a separate post.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
