No replies to this topic

[tnctx02]

It's a situation of contrasts. ISOHunt and TorrentSpy, two of the major players in last week’s copyright enforcement actions, have decided to hold the line and fight the MPAA's lawsuit. The same cannot be said about the once popular eDonkey2000 indexing site ED2K-It.com, as it has succumbed to the pressure of the MPAA.

The identity of those administering ED2K-It.com is currently unknown. In an effort to obtain the identity of the administration of ED2K-It.com, the movie industry followed the music industry’s example by filing a “John Doe” lawsuit. Because the extent of the ownership structure is unknown, John Does 1-10 were named in the complaint.

"Defendants Does 1-10 are currently unknown to Plaintiffs (Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.) They operate a website, www.ed2k-it.com, at the Internet Protocol address 67.43.11.190, by virtue of which Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works are unlawfully copied and distributed. That website is hosted by Liquid Web, an internet service provider headquartered in Lansing, Michigan, on a server located in or around Lansing, Michigan. On information and belief, all of the Defendants participate in and profit from the activities alleged herein."

The main thrust of the lawsuit against ED2K-It.com claims the defendants "...enable their users to locate and download infringing copies of Plaintiffs’ valuable copyrighted motion pictures and television shows for free and without authorization. Defendants operate their website with the express object of promoting its use to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights."

Another serious point of contention the movie industry articulates is the defendants “…profit unlawfully from the distribution of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted movies and television programs.”

Overall, the complaint against ED2K-It.com concludes the administrators are liable for three forms of copyright infringement; inducing, contributory, and vicariously enabling copyright infringement.

The complaint states ED2K-It.com is liable for inducing copyright infringement because the administrators are actively involved in the daily operations and maintenance of the site. With an overwhelming abundance of indexed copyrighted material, the complainants contend the administrators had to power to curb infringing material, but chose not to.

Plaintiffs also claim administrators of ED2K-it.com are liable for contributory copyright infringement. This is substantiated by the claim the defendants knew their indexing site was used overwhelmingly in the ultimate goal of infringing on the Plaintiff’s copyright.

Lastly, and perhaps most seriously, Plaintiffs contend ED2K-It.com is liable for vicarious copyright infringement. Because ED2K-It undoubtedly profited from banner ads, donations, and other advertisements, the complainants insist there was a “direct financial benefit attributable to the infringement by users of their website.”

Perhaps the monumental task of defending against the lawsuit has proven too much for ED2K-It.com. Although they have maintained their silence with the media, they have informed Gary Fung of ISOHunt this once popular eDonkey2000 indexing site will in all likelihood not return. The correspondence dictated the administrator of ED2K-it.com has decided to close their site for a “while / forever.”

The Plaintiffs in this case bring many of the same arguments as brought before the Supreme Court in the MGM vs. Grokster case. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that Grokster could be retried in the lower courts and be found guilty of inducing copyright infringement. There are many parallels to these cases; Grokster, like ED2K-It.com, merely indexed files. Also, the Grokster client only served as an interface to this index. The future of such file-sharing indexes, at least in the United States, is in serious doubt.