ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Threat Level

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: Threat Level

MPAA Secretly Tells Court Why BitTorrent Tracking Sites Violate Copyrights -- UPDATE

By Ryan Singel, Kevin Poulsen, Sarah Lai Stirland, Kim Zetter, and David Kravets

ADVERTISEMENTS

Logo

The answer to the question of whether BitTorrent tracking sites are legal in the United States depends on who is asked. Now it seems the Motion Picture Association of America is prohibited to say publicly why the movie industry believes the answer is "no."

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court might provide guidance, as there has been no definitive ruling on the merits. A case likely headed the high court's way is one brought by the MPAA accusing tracking site  isoHunt and its owner, Gary Fung, of copyright infringement. The offense: the site points the way to torrents of movies and other copyrighted material hosted elsewhere.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson is presiding over the case in Los Angeles and considering an isoHunt motion to dismiss the case, brought in 2006. Two weeks ago, Wilson asked the MPAA to explain how BitTorrent works "in connection with the copying of actual files and the services defendants provide." Wilson also asked the MPAA to explain whether the defendants "place any product into commerce for purposes of contributory infringement."

Judge Wilson ordered the MPAA to respond Friday to questions that cut to the heart of the dispute. The MPAA met the deadline, but answered under seal. Ira Rothken, Fung's attorney, said in a recent interview the questions "get at the crux of the whole case."

UPDATE

Elizabeth Kaltman, an MPAA spokesman, said there was nothing nefarious about Hollywood's lobbying arm filling its brief under seal. She noted that some of Rothken's briefs are under seal, and she said some information in the MPAA response touches on that sealed material.

"In responding to the court's questions, plaintiffs made reference to materials that the defendants had designated as confidential under the protective order," she said.

Rothken was not immediately available for comment.

See Also:


Full post as published by Threat Level on April 18, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0131 secs (new cache)