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
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Columbia Pictures v. Gary Fung and Isohunt Web Technologies

Columbia Pictures v. Gary Fung and Isohunt Web Technologies

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,046 |Likes:
Published by PaidContent

More info:

Published by: PaidContent on Feb 21, 2011
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

02/26/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Docket No. 10-55946
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
 Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v.GARY FUNG and ISOHUNT WEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
 Defendants-Appellants.
 Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Central District of California, No. 06-CV-05578Hon. Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge
BRIEF OF GOOGLE INC. AS
AMICUS CURIAE 
IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE
David H. KramerBart E. VolkmerW
ILSON
S
ONSINI
G
OODRICH
&R
OSATI
650 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304(650) 493-9300 Andrew H. Schapiro A. John P. ManciniBrian M. WillenM
 AYER
B
ROWN
LLP1675 BroadwayNew York, NY 10016(212) 506-2500
Counsel for
Amicus CuriaeF
EBRUARY 
8, 2011
Case: 10-55946 02/08/2011 Page: 1 of 39 ID: 7640872 DktEntry: 31-3
 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 29(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of AppellateProcedure,
amicus
Google Inc. states that it does not have a parentcorporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
Case: 10-55946 02/08/2011 Page: 2 of 39 ID: 7640872 DktEntry: 31-3
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
Grokster
Standard Deters Pirate Services WhileProtecting Innovation And Legitimate Commerce.................8B. While The Defendants Engaged In Inducing Conduct,The District Court Relied On Irrelevant Evidence AndGave Inadequate Attention To Causation.............................14II. INDUCEMENT DOES NOT TRUMP THE DMCA, BUTTHE DEFENDANTS HERE DO NOT QUALIFY FOR SAFEHARBOR PROTECTION REGARDLESS OF WHETHERTHEY ARE LIABLE FOR INDUCEMENT....................................20 A. The District Court Unnecessarily And Incorrectly Addressed The Relationship Between The DMCA AndJudge-Made Rules Of Secondary Liability............................20B. This Court Should Reject Plaintiffs’ Misguided Arguments About The DMCA’s Knowledge Provisions. ......26CONCLUSION...........................................................................................30CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .........................................................32
Case: 10-55946 02/08/2011 Page: 3 of 39 ID: 7640872 DktEntry: 31-3

Activity (5)

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

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)//-->