Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
P. 1
Isohunt Rehearing

Isohunt Rehearing

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,238|Likes:
Published by torrentfreak

More info:

Published by: torrentfreak on Apr 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Docket No. 10-55946
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the
 
Ninth Circuit
 
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, TRISTAR PICTURES, INC., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION,UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP,UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS, LLLPand WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.GARY FUNG and ISOHUNT WEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
 ______________________________________
Appeal from a Decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California,No. 06-CV-05578
·
Honorable Stephen V. Wilson
PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARINGAND REHEARING EN BANC BY APPELLANTS GARY FUNGAND ISOHUNT WEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
I
RA
P.
 
R
OTHKEN
,
 
E
SQ
.R
OBERT
L.
 
OVSKY
,
 
E
SQ
. J
ARED
R.
 
S
MITH
,
 
E
SQ
.ROTHKEN LAW FIRM3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 280Novato, California 94949(415) 924-4250 Telephone(415) 924-2905 Facsimile
Attorneys for Appellants,Gary Fung and isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc.
 
C
OUNSEL
P
RESS
·
 
(800) 3-APPEAL
 
P
RINTED
O
N
R
ECYCLED
P
APER
 
Case: 10-55946 04/03/2013 ID: 8576455 DktEntry: 66 Page: 1 of 114
 
 i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
pageIndex of Authorities ..….....….....….....….....….....….....….....….....…....…... iiI. The Panel Decision Applies Erroneous Legal Standards to Find .....Fung Liable on Disputed Facts and to Deny Him a Trial by Jury1II. The Panel Decision and the District Court Opinion Combine to ...Punish Speech that Should Be Protected by the First Amendment5III. The Panel Decision Expands the
Grokster
Rule in Multiple Ways …..that Threaten the Future of Technological Innovation7A. The “Technological Backgroundset forth in the Panel .Decision ignores the “collective BitTorrent ecosystem” anderroneously identifies BitTorrent with systems in
Grokster
 8B. The Panel Decision erroneously expands the
Grokster
rule …...from applying to a distributor of a device to applying as amatter of law to any provider of data or online services10C. The Panel Decision erroneously adopts a “loose causation theory” that defers actual findings of fact for later proceedings11D. The Panel Decision’s procedure of selective matching ...between cases is narrow and arbitrary and improperlyexcludes personal testimony13IV. Dismissal of DMCA Defenses through Device Definitions and ...Because of “Knowledge of a Broad Range of Infringing Activity”Clashes with Legal Standards Based on Trial by Jury14Conclusion ………………………………………………...………………... 15Certificate of Compliance …………………………………………………… 16Exhibit A: Panel Decision (Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung),decided 3/21/2013Exhibit B: District Court Opinion (Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v.Fung), decided 12/21/2009Certificate of Service
Case: 10-55946 04/03/2013 ID: 8576455 DktEntry: 66 Page: 2 of 114
 
 ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ..................................... 1, 3, 4
Boim v. Holy Land Fdn,
, 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008),
cert. den.sub nom Boim v. Salah
, 130 S.Ct. 458 (2009) ..................................................... 12
Desrosiers v. Flight Int'l
, 156 F.3d 952 (1998) .......................................................11
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc
., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) ........................ 5
Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc
., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ........................15
Holmes v. SIPC
., 503 U.S. 258 (1992) .................................................................... 12
Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey
, 552 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. Cal., 2009),
aff’d & rev’d in parts sub. nom.
 
Holder v. Humanitarian LawProject
, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010). ............................................................................7
McCoy v. Stewart
, 282 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2002)
cert. den.
537 U.S. 993 (2002) ..... 6
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster,
545 U.S. 913 (2005) .....................................
passim
 
MGM v. Grokster
, 380 F. 3d 1154 (9
th
Cir. 2004) .....................................................4
Oviatt v. Pearce
, 954 F.2d 1470 (1992) .................................................................. 11
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) .....................10
Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill
, 488 F. 3d 1102 (9
th
Cir. 2007) ................................ 10, 14
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intl Serv. Assn
, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................10
Provenz v. Miller
, 102 F. 3d 1478 (9
th
Cir. 1996) .....................................................4
 TW Elec. Serv. v. Pac. Elec. Contr’s Ass’n
, 809 F. 2d 626 (9
th
Cir. 1987) ............... 2
UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners,
(9th Cir. 3/14/2013) ................ 12, 15
Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc
., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) ....................... 14-15
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
 First Amendment .................................................................................................... 5-7Seventh Amendment ..................................................................................................5
Case: 10-55946 04/03/2013 ID: 8576455 DktEntry: 66 Page: 3 of 114

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->