Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung

Good Law
710 F.3d 1020·2013 WL 1174151·106 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1602·85 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 103·2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5597
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 21, 201310-55946California13,767 words

Opinion

Opinion

Berzon, J.

This case is yet another concerning the application of established intellectual property concepts to new technologies. See, e.g., UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC, — F.3d -, 2013 WL 1092793 (9th Cir.2013); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir.2007); Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.2012). Various film studios alleged that the services offered and websites maintained by Appellants Gary Fung and his company, isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc. (iso-hunt.com, torrentbox.com, podtropolis.com, and ed2k-it.com, collectively referred to in this opinion as “Fung” or the “Fung sites”) induced third parties to download infring ing copies of the studios’ copyrighted works. The district court agreed, holding that the undisputed facts establish that Fung is liable for contributory copyright infringement. The district court also held as a matter of law that Fung is not entitled to protection from damages liability under any of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512 , Congress’s foray into mediating the competing interests in protecting intellectual property…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.