Supreme Court Passes on Perfect 10 Piracy Case
The Supreme Court on Dec. 3 denied an appeal by an adult Web site that sued companies providing services to sites that pirated its content.
December 03, 2007 at 10:57 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Supreme Court on Dec. 3 denied an appeal by an adult Web site that sued companies providing services to sites that pirated its content.
Perfect 10, which once published a magazine but now focuses on Web content, sued companies that provided credit card billing and Web hosting services, accusing them of enabling copyright infringement and violating California target law.
Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit said such companies are shielded from liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Communications Decency Act. The High Court's decision in Perfect 10 Inc. v. CCBill will let that ruling stand.
Perfect 10 has gone after other companies it alleged enabled the pirating sites to conduct business. The 9th Circuit dismissed its suit against Visa and MasterCard this summer, while a suit it brought against search engines Google and Amazon–which allegedly led customers to the pirating sites–is still in litigation.
Perfect 10's tactic of going after companies that are indirectly contributing to the piracy rather than the actual infringing sites is novel. In an October InsideCounsel interview, Perfect 10 founder Norm Zada said targeting companies that enable the piracy is the only way a copyright owner can get relief.
“There's no reason why our banking system should be facilitating the sale of stolen movies, songs, photos, etc.,” he said. “The credit card companies don't process payments for child pornography, illegal drug sales or online gambling.”
The Supreme Court on Dec. 3 denied an appeal by an adult Web site that sued companies providing services to sites that pirated its content.
Perfect 10, which once published a magazine but now focuses on Web content, sued companies that provided credit card billing and Web hosting services, accusing them of enabling copyright infringement and violating California target law.
Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit said such companies are shielded from liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Communications Decency Act. The High Court's decision in Perfect 10 Inc. v. CCBill will let that ruling stand.
Perfect 10 has gone after other companies it alleged enabled the pirating sites to conduct business. The 9th Circuit dismissed its suit against Visa and MasterCard this summer, while a suit it brought against search engines
Perfect 10's tactic of going after companies that are indirectly contributing to the piracy rather than the actual infringing sites is novel. In an October InsideCounsel interview, Perfect 10 founder Norm Zada said targeting companies that enable the piracy is the only way a copyright owner can get relief.
“There's no reason why our banking system should be facilitating the sale of stolen movies, songs, photos, etc.,” he said. “The credit card companies don't process payments for child pornography, illegal drug sales or online gambling.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRecent Layoff/Callback Litigation Underscores Perils Employers Face From Every Direction
5 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
In-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readNike Promotes Legal Chief to Marketing Chief as New CEO Launches Turnaround
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Mass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
- 4It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
- 5Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250