[citation][nom]Rusted[/nom]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".[/citation]
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.