Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: open(/home/155937/data/tmp/sess_0da5cf9b2f1be11426898f4ea847410a, O_RDWR) failed: Permission denied (13) in /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/ipaper/ipaper.php on line 11

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/ipaper/ipaper.php:11) in /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/ipaper/ipaper.php on line 11

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/ipaper/ipaper.php:11) in /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/ipaper/ipaper.php on line 11

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/ipaper/ipaper.php:11) in /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/spammer-blocker/spammer-blocker.php on line 279

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/ipaper/ipaper.php:11) in /nfs/c06/h06/mnt/155937/domains/likelihoodofconfusion.com/html/wp-content/plugins/wassup/wassup.php on line 2001
Perfect 10 v. Visa: Credit card companies and Internet piracy | LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

Credit card companies get green light to profit from, enable Internet piracy

Originally posted 2007-07-04 23:59:37. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

credit_card_logos_10.gif

Reuters reports that in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intl. Serv. Assn., 494 F.3d 788, 793 (9th Cir. 2007) the Ninth Circuit has affirmed (opinion here), 2-1, a ruling that there is no third-party copyright or trademark liability for credit card companies such as Visa and MasterCard or the banks that process their transactions, arising from their central — essential, really — role in the sale of counterfeit merchandise (including, as in this case, unauthorized copies of dirty pictures) on the Internet:

Writing for the majority, Judge Milan Smith Jr. said credit card processors, unlike Web search providers, do not direct online traffic. “They in no way assist or enable Internet users to locate infringing material, and they do not distribute it,” Smith wrote.

“Here, the infringement rests on the reproduction, alteration, display and distribution of Perfect 10’s images over the Internet,” Smith wrote.

If you didn’t guess from the title, I disagree with this. Why do judges keep missing this? The credit card companies are very much in the profit chain of infringing websites — websites that do nothing but sell counterfeit goods — and they make no serious effort, even when notified, to prevent this activity from occurring.

I am not just shooting from the hip here. I researched this issue extensively for a Very Important Client, and came to the conclusion that, under the right circumstances, liability should, indeed, attach. I cannot understand, for example, why the Ninth Circuit spends so much time focusing on the fact that the credit card companies do not themselves operate the infringing websites the way flea market operators (who have been held contributorily liable) operate the markets where counterfeit items are sold. That is besides the point. I find this language particularly frustrating:

[T]he ability to exert financial pressure does not give Defendants the right or ability to control the actual infringing activity at issue in this case [as would be required to find liabilty]. . . Defendants can only refuse to process credit card payments to the offending merchant within their payment network, or they can threaten to do so if the merchant does not comply with a request to alter content. While either option would likely have some indirect effect on the infringing activity, as we discuss at greater length in our analysis of the Grokster “stop or limit” standard below, so might any number of actions by any number of actors.

Since when is the fact that other things would also work mean that the law will not require a party in a position to prevent illegality — and which is profiting from the transactions — to do what is in its power?

I’m not alone; not by a long shot. The dissenter? Only Alex Kozinski, who also recognizes that the majority errs — really, in my view, demonstrates real intellectual dishonesty — in that they

recognize, as they must, that helping consumers locate infringing content can constitute contributory infringement but they consign the means of payment to secondary status. … But why is locating infringing images more central to infringement than paying for them? If infringing images can’t be found, there can be no infringement; but if infringing images can’t be paid for, there can be no infringement either. Location services and payment services are equally central to infringement; the majority’s contrary assertion is supported largely by disparaging use of “merely,” “simply” and “only.” …

If cards don’t process payment, pirates don’t deliver booty. The credit cards, in fact, control distribution of the infringing material… It does not serve the interests of a free market, or a free society, to abet marauders who pilfer the property of law-abiding, tax-paying rights holders, and who turn consumers into recipients of stolen property.

Now, this is the Ninth Circuit. So this is by no means over.  [UPDATE:  Here, read all contributory trademark infringement -- Jane Coleman wrote everything you need to know about it.]

UPDATE: Great title by Rebecca Tushnet: “Visa: It’s everywhere you want to infringe.” My I add a suggestion for your “Mastercard card”? “Crime never pays, but Internet crime? Priceless.”

UPDATE:  Analysis from the New York Law Journal.

NU:  From the Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property:

In sum, the court failed to correctly align the facts with similarly situated cases. The majority takes an outdated look at infringement, failing to comprehend the complexity and practicality associated with ever-changing technology. While the tests for secondary liability for copyright infringement are somewhat open for interpretation, cases such as Fonovisa, Grokster, and Google provide guidance, which the majority failed to interpret and apply properly. In granting Visa’s motion to dismiss, the court left Perfect 10 and other similar companies that depend on copyright-protected photographs with an uphill battle in the struggle to preserve their digitally-driven businesses. The court should have denied Visa’s motion to dismiss and granted Perfect 10 with the opportunity to prove its case during trial.

8 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 85, 98 (2008).

UPDATE:  Oh, this is good.  This is good!

email

Tags: , , , , ,

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

Subscribe

There are all kinds of social media formats to subscribe or otherwise follow the adventures of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®. Or see the posts-by-email option below.

2 Responses to “Credit card companies get green light to profit from, enable Internet piracy”

  1. 6
    March 1, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    “I researched this issue extensively for a Very Important Client, and came to the conclusion that, under the right circumstances, liability should, indeed, attach. I cannot understand, for example, why the Ninth Circuit spends so much time focusing on the fact that the credit card companies do not themselves operate the infringing websites the way flea market operators (who have been held contributorily liable) operate the markets where counterfeit items are sold.”

    Lulz, a lawltard came to the conclusion that someone that in no way contributes to infringement should be held liable for contributory infringement. And the same lawltard doesn’t understand how someone that does contribute to infringement by selling a work at their fleamarket is different from someone who doesn’t contribute to infringement at all in any way.

    Absolutely amazing. Who would have ever believed that such a thing could have occured? Now I’ve seen it all.

    “but if infringing images can’t be paid for, there can be no infringement either. ”

    Hilarious. I probably unintentionally infringed at least a thousand copyrights just last week and I did it all without paying one dollar. Certainly no less than 50. If I can do it accidontally I can surely accomplish it by doing it on purpose. If you don’t know how to infringe without paying for it you’re a tard. Plain and simple.

    “If cards don’t process payment, pirates don’t deliver booty. ”

    Is this judge a real person living in our universe? Pirates deliver booty in the vast majority of instances free of charge. And if you’re paying for your booty urdoinitwrong.

    “It does not serve the interests of a free market, or a free society, to abet marauders who pilfer the property of law-abiding, tax-paying rights holders, and who turn consumers into recipients of stolen property.”

    But neither does the judiciary making up lawl out of whole cloth to suit their fancy, but the judge doesn’t seem to mind that while advocating for such being done.

    “The majority takes an outdated look at infringement,”

    In other words, they did what they were supposed to do and you lawltards really really don’t like it.

    Tthe court left Perfect 10 and other similar companies that depend on copyright-protected photographs with an uphill battle in the struggle to preserve their digitally-driven businesses.”

    Why don’t you cry us a dirty picture laced river?

    The only thing I can see the court did wrong in this case was fail to provide sanctions against the people that brought it. I am disgusted that my card provider had to pay money to defend against this objectively baseless nonsensical suit. And I’m also disgusted that one of my judges up ins of my country thinks they should just shape the lawl however they please to accomplish whatever goal they please.

    This whole OP is outrageous.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® » Blog Archive » “Just taking orders” doesn’t cut it for eBay in Germany - July 27, 2007

    [...] The Europeans are a lot less the surrender-monkeys we make them out to be when it comes to this stuff — and a lot less the surrender monkeys than our own courts are. [...]

Leave a Reply


Warning: Unknown: open(/home/155937/data/tmp/sess_0da5cf9b2f1be11426898f4ea847410a, O_RDWR) failed: Permission denied (13) in Unknown on line 0

Warning: Unknown: Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct (/home/155937/data/tmp) in Unknown on line 0