The team representing Vaulin, however, has just filed a motion to dismiss the U.S. government's case against him. They assert that because torrents are not technically copyrightable material, there is no violation of criminal copyright laws, and the case must be thrown out without ever going to trial.
Vaulin's co-counsels from The Rothken Firm and Cotsirilos, Tighe, Streicker, Poulos & Campbell have submitted a 22-page memorandum of law supporting the motion to dismiss the case.
"Websites like KAT are devoid of content files. Instead, KAT is nothing more than a search engine, no different in any material way from Google and other popular website search engines, except that KAT indexes BitTorrent files," attorney Ira Rothken argues in the memorandum. "Thus, at its core, the indictment merely alleges that visitors to KAT may take advantage of KAT's automated search processes to search for and locate 'dot torrent' files. Such files contain textual information assembled by automated processes and do not contain copyrighted content."
“Given the lack of direct willful copyright infringement, torrent sites do not violate criminal copyright laws,” the defense argues, referring to the fact that “there is no copyright protection for such torrent file instructions and addresses.”
The defense says that under the civil law only, it is possible to hold torrent website operators responsible for the secondary infringements committed by the users, as it has been observed in the past. However, the criminal legislation has no concept of “secondary copyright liability” which strengthens the fact that Vaulin has been indicted for a non-existent crime.
The defense indicates that there were no copyrighted media specifically mentioned in the indictment which was downloaded or violated the copyright law in the US. Also, the money laundering claims are moot as they depend on the criminal copyright claims.
The claim, hosting and providing a search engine for indexed torrent files is a willful direct copyright infringement, fails, the defense concludes.
“Any theory that a torrent search engine could be held responsible for the offsite infringing acts of its users would be a theory of civil secondary copyright infringement. Such a civil theory is not an offense against the United States and fails as a matter of law,” Rothken writes.
“Any and all counts that are dependent on criminal copyright infringement, including the conspiracy and money laundering counts, must fail. For all the reasons set forth above, the Court should dismiss the indictment.”
In the following weeks, the US government is expected to deliver counter arguments for the claims mentioned in the memorandum. The court shall take the decision based on that. You can read the full memorandum here.
Vaulin's co-counsels from The Rothken Firm and Cotsirilos, Tighe, Streicker, Poulos & Campbell have submitted a 22-page memorandum of law supporting the motion to dismiss the case.
"Websites like KAT are devoid of content files. Instead, KAT is nothing more than a search engine, no different in any material way from Google and other popular website search engines, except that KAT indexes BitTorrent files," attorney Ira Rothken argues in the memorandum. "Thus, at its core, the indictment merely alleges that visitors to KAT may take advantage of KAT's automated search processes to search for and locate 'dot torrent' files. Such files contain textual information assembled by automated processes and do not contain copyrighted content."
“Given the lack of direct willful copyright infringement, torrent sites do not violate criminal copyright laws,” the defense argues, referring to the fact that “there is no copyright protection for such torrent file instructions and addresses.”
The defense says that under the civil law only, it is possible to hold torrent website operators responsible for the secondary infringements committed by the users, as it has been observed in the past. However, the criminal legislation has no concept of “secondary copyright liability” which strengthens the fact that Vaulin has been indicted for a non-existent crime.
The defense indicates that there were no copyrighted media specifically mentioned in the indictment which was downloaded or violated the copyright law in the US. Also, the money laundering claims are moot as they depend on the criminal copyright claims.
The claim, hosting and providing a search engine for indexed torrent files is a willful direct copyright infringement, fails, the defense concludes.
“Any theory that a torrent search engine could be held responsible for the offsite infringing acts of its users would be a theory of civil secondary copyright infringement. Such a civil theory is not an offense against the United States and fails as a matter of law,” Rothken writes.
“Any and all counts that are dependent on criminal copyright infringement, including the conspiracy and money laundering counts, must fail. For all the reasons set forth above, the Court should dismiss the indictment.”
In the following weeks, the US government is expected to deliver counter arguments for the claims mentioned in the memorandum. The court shall take the decision based on that. You can read the full memorandum here.
Torrent Sites Do Not Violate Criminal Copyright Laws, Say KAT Lawyers
Reviewed by Tech Ugly
on
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Rating:
Reviewed by Tech Ugly
on
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Rating:
No comments: