## Facts

- Motion picture studios sued Gary Fung and his companies for operating torrent-oriented websites (including isoHunt) that indexed and categorized BitTorrent “.torrent” files and enabled users to locate and download content from other users.
- The sites did not host the copyrighted movies themselves; they provided search, browse, and indexing functions and linked to torrent metadata that facilitated peer-to-peer transfers.
- The sites featured categories and labels highlighting popular, current commercial films (e.g., a “Top 20 Movies” list of then-current box-office releases).
- Evidence showed widespread infringement on the sites: a very large majority of indexed content was copyrighted; the sites had millions of monthly users; and a substantial portion of downloading activity involved U.S.-based users.
- Fung made public statements and forum posts that encouraged users to obtain copyrighted movies and offered help locating infringing copies of current releases.
- The studios alleged inducement and contributory infringement and sought to defeat asserted safe-harbor defenses under 17 U.S.C. § 512.

## Issues

1. Whether operating BitTorrent indexing/search websites and encouraging their infringing use supports contributory infringement liability on an inducement theory.
2. Whether plaintiffs adequately showed domestic acts of direct infringement sufficient to apply U.S. copyright law to the challenged peer-to-peer activity.
3. Whether defendants qualified for DMCA safe harbors under 17 U.S.C. § 512(a), (c), or (d), including the repeat-infringer policy requirement in § 512(i).
4. What permanent injunctive relief was appropriate to prevent continued infringement-facilitating conduct.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the studios on inducement-based contributory copyright infringement.
- The court rejected the argument that the claims failed due to extraterritoriality, finding sufficient domestic infringement tied to U.S. users and transmissions involving the United States.
- The court held defendants were not entitled to safe-harbor protection under § 512(a), (c), or (d), citing actual and at least “red flag” knowledge of infringement and failure to satisfy statutory conditions, including repeat-infringer policy requirements.
- The court entered a permanent injunction barring defendants from continuing infringement-facilitating operations through the challenged sites and related services.

## Legal Principles

- Inducement liability applies where a defendant distributes or operates a product or service used for infringement, knows of substantial direct infringement, acts with the object of promoting infringing use (shown by clear expression or affirmative steps), and materially contributes to or causes infringement.
- Providing an indexing and search service that is designed and marketed to facilitate infringement, coupled with active encouragement of infringing use, can satisfy inducement even if the service does not host the copyrighted files.
- For territorial limits, liability may rest on infringing acts occurring within the United States or unauthorized transmissions into the United States; plaintiffs need not show both ends of every peer-to-peer transfer were domestic if domestic infringement is established on the record.
- DMCA safe harbors under § 512 require, among other conditions, lack of actual knowledge or apparent (“red flag”) awareness of infringement, and reasonable implementation of a repeat-infringer policy; a service provider with pervasive infringement awareness and active encouragement may fail these requirements.

## Conclusion

The court held that a BitTorrent indexing-site operator who designed and promoted his services to enable unauthorized access to copyrighted movies induced users’ infringement, could not invoke DMCA safe harbors given extensive apparent infringement and unmet statutory conditions, and was subject to a permanent injunction to stop the infringement-facilitating conduct.


Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 2009 WL 6355911 (C.D. Cal. 2009)