Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
15Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Response to Civil Claim - Final

Response to Civil Claim - Final

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 23,886 |Likes:
Published by TorrentFreak_

More info:

Published by: TorrentFreak_ on Feb 29, 2012
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

07/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
NO. S103350VANCOUVER REGISTRY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:ARISTA RECORDS LLC, CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, LA COMPAGNIE LARIVEE, CABOT,CHAMPAGNE, DARE TO CARE RECORDS INC., LES DISQUES AUDIOGRAMME INC., EMIMUSIC CANADA, EMI RECORDS LIMITED, INTERSCOPE RECORDS, JUSTIN TIMERECORDS INC., LAFACE RECORDS LLC, MERCURY RECORDS LIMITED, MUTE RECORDSLIMITED, POLYDOR LIMITED, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, SONY MUSICENTERTAINMENT CANADA INC., SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT UK LIMITED,TANDEM.MU INC., UMG RECORDINGS, INC., UNIVERSAL MUSIC CANADA INC.,UNIVERSAL-ISLAND RECORDS LIMITED, VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC, VIRGINRECORDS LIMITED, WARNER MUSIC CANADA CO., WARNER MUSIC UK LIMITED, WEAINTERNATIONAL INC., ZOMBA RECORDING LLCPLAINTIFFSAND:ISOHUNT WEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and GARY FUNG
 
DEFENDANTS
RESPONSE TO CIVIL CLAIM
Filed by: ISOHUNT WEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and GARY FUNG (the “Defendants”)
Part 1: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM FACTS
Division 1—Defendants’ Response to Facts
1. The facts alleged in paragraphs 4 to 29 inclusive and 32, of Part 1 of the Notice of Civil Claim are admitted.2. The facts alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, and 33 to 65 inclusive of Part 1 of the Noticeof Civil Claim are denied.3. The facts alleged in paragraphs 3, 30, and 31 of Part 1 of the Notice of CivilClaim are outside the knowledge of the Defendants.
 
2
Division 2—Defendants’ Version of Facts
The isoHunt Website
4.
 
The Defendants specifically admit that the Defendant isoHunt Web TechnologiesInc. (“isoHunt”) is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of British Columbia butstate that its registered and records office is located at 7316 Baffin Court, Richmond,British Columbia V7C 5L6.5.
 
The Defendant Gary Fung (“Fung”) is a businessperson and president of theDefendant isoHunt.6.
 
The Defendant isoHunt operates a website on the World Wide Web (“Web”)calledwww.isohunt.com(the “isoHunt Website”). The isoHunt Website offers oneprimary service:a.
 
a Web search engine or information location tool (the “isoHunt Search Engine”)for visitors to the isoHunt Website to use;and two minor services:b.
 
a forum for visitors to the isoHunt Website to interact and to hold discussions; andc.
 
facility for visitors to upload identification data known as dot-torrent files andmore particularly described in paragraphs 12 to 14 of this Response to CivilClaim (“Response”).7.
 
The isoHunt Search Engine is an Web-based information location tool that assistsan individual to locate content of interest on the Web by locating metadata for thatcontent. This content is in a file called in this Response a “BT Content File”. A BTContent File is distributed by individuals over the Web pursuant to a technology orprotocol called “BitTorrent” (sometimes abbreviated in this Response as “BT”).8.
 
For the purposes of clarity in this Response and as will be more particularlydescribed in this Response, the Defendants say that:
 
3
a.
 
neither the isoHunt Website nor the isoHunt Search Engine ever hosts anyBT Content File the content of which is subject to a claim of copyrightwithout the express authorization of the copyright holder. No content(such as a sound recording), not even a fragment of content, is stored on orpasses through the isoHunt Website or the isoHunt Search Engine with thenarrow exceptions outlined in paragraphs 31 and 44 of this Response;b.
 
neither the isoHunt Website nor the isoHunt Search Engine has ever hadtracker functionality and thus, aside from the minor services noted insubparagraphs 6(a) and (b) of this Response, they purely provide anindexing service;c.
 
neither the isoHunt Website nor the isoHunt Search Engine has everprovided or offered BT Client Software for sharing sound recordings orother content files – individual users obtain this software (described inparagraphs 24 to 31 of this Response) elsewhere, usually generally freelyavailable on the Web.9.
 
Again for the purposes of clarity and as will be more particularly described in thisResponse, the Defendants deny and put the Plaintiffs to the strict proof of the allegationsin the Notice of Civil Claim, including but not limited to:a.
 
any of the musical works listed in the Notice of Civil Claim (collectivelyreferred to in this Response as the “Plaintiffs’ Sound Recordings”) haveever been duplicated or distributed by the Defendants on the isoHuntWebsite or any of the other websites operated by the Defendants;b.
 
the Plaintiffs have suffered any damages or that the sales of the Plaintiffs’Sound Recordings have decreased over time because of anything done bythe Defendants in operating the isoHunt Website, the isoHunt SearchEngine or any of the Defendants Other Websites (described in paragraphs45 to 49of this Response).

Activity (15)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Rhett Cook added this note
search engine in the world they can definitely afford the best lawyers you could literally get i don't see that happening. And if it does i don't see them winning. Point is there are sites much bigger then isohunt that are committing the same "crimes" I wouldn't be surprised if Google ends up shutting this whole anti internet thing down.
Rhett Cook added this note
You know if they are really getting you for being a search indexer that happens to have illegal content on it they should be trying to whut down google too. I mean they have the sites that are allegedly portraying said illegal content right? How else are you going to find out about said site in the first place on less its from person to person right? Considering that google is the biggest...
pellazgus liked this
Mikey1982 added this note
According to the file and accusations brought... google can be sued as-well; if bought a cd who can deny me the right to invite... :)) 2 billion :)) friends to my home to listen to it too ? if they like it... they buy it...
Patrick Wharton added this note
three: Why don't we produce jobs for everyone so we can buy there stupid needless stuff that maybe we only use once or twice in our lifes. All this law suit is going to do is drive the underground further underground and let make more to share what they want to share do you even realize this at all or you are to busy make 40k per company to sue websites and there content. WoW this world is sad
Patrick Wharton added this note
two: You are going to tell us that we are not allowed to post pics and videos because people will take them off our profiles and use them for the own purpose. Which i might add was done to alot over the years. Why don't we make stuff that is easily accessiable and don't have pay a 1500 for software or songs or dvds that we can not find in english(USA here). Lets make jobs that can hire people.
Patrick Wharton added this note
hello i read all the article filed by companies in the lawsuit and I have some added points to make too if you so choose to listen to them. One: The internet is a multiple computers linked together by an isp who is a centerized computer. Yes isp's have control over certain date being passed through there servers. So you are telling me that we can not share our own files with people?

You're Reading a Free Preview

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