3 ms·

RapidShare didn't infringe on copyrights, says US court

18 points by MikeCapone 16y ago

grellas 16y ago
This ruling involved denial of a preliminary injunction request by P 10 and thus did not involve a ruling that "RapidShare didn't infringe on copyrights." To get a preliminary injunction, a party must show, among other things, that it is likely to prevail on the merits of the case and that it will suffer irreparable harm should its request be denied. A court does not rule on the ultimate merits of a case one way or the other in ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction. At the preliminary injunction phase, everything is gauged on probabilities and a judge has a lot of discretion in deciding the issues. As reported in this article, based on P 10's preliminary showing, the judge was not convinced that P 10 would likely prevail on the merits based on the evidence submitted (meaning, the issue of whether infringement occurred remains open for trial but the judge did not see compelling enough evidence at this point), was not convinced that P 10 would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were denied (since it waited 4 years even to file the suit, the natural question in the judge's mind is "what's another year or so to get to trial" if no urgency has been shown to date), and was not convinced that the public interest would be served by granting the request. Thus, a significant victory for RapidShare but, at the same time, just one more step along the path of getting to trial, where the merits of the case will ultimately be decided. It may be a precursor of things to come but that will depend on whether P 10 can shore up its evidence of infringement before the actual trial itself. Based on its sorry history, it probably will not but, technically, this remains to be determined.
antidaily 16y ago
The porn company has a long and somewhat pitiful history of unsuccessfully suing major companies for what it considers copyright infringement. They sued Google for image search results.

18 points by MikeCapone 16y ago

This ruling involved denial of a preliminary injunction request by P 10 and thus did not involve a ruling that "RapidShare didn't infringe on copyrights." To get a preliminary injunction, a party must show, among other things, that it is likely to prevail on the merits of the case and that it will suffer irreparable harm should its request be denied. A court does not rule on the ultimate merits of a case one way or the other in ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction. At the preliminary injunction phase, everything is gauged on probabilities and a judge has a lot of discretion in deciding the issues. As reported in this article, based on P 10's preliminary showing, the judge was not convinced that P 10 would likely prevail on the merits based on the evidence submitted (meaning, the issue of whether infringement occurred remains open for trial but the judge did not see compelling enough evidence at this point), was not convinced that P 10 would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were denied (since it waited 4 years even to file the suit, the natural question in the judge's mind is "what's another year or so to get to trial" if no urgency has been shown to date), and was not convinced that the public interest would be served by granting the request. Thus, a significant victory for RapidShare but, at the same time, just one more step along the path of getting to trial, where the merits of the case will ultimately be decided. It may be a precursor of things to come but that will depend on whether P 10 can shore up its evidence of infringement before the actual trial itself. Based on its sorry history, it probably will not but, technically, this remains to be determined.

antidaily 16y ago

The porn company has a long and somewhat pitiful history of unsuccessfully suing major companies for what it considers copyright infringement. They sued Google for image search results.