Does Mininova verdict clarify the rules for next generation of torrent portals?

In an interesting post, Torrentfreak explores the consequences of the ruling against Mininova. Main conclusion: the ruling clarified the context in which torrent sites operate, helping future file-sharing platforms to better walk the legal tightrope.

The judge in Utrecht ruled that Mininova acted unlawful because it played a contributing role when users downloaded content and infringing copyright. Mininova’s defence that it did have notice-and-takedown procedures was countered by evidence from Mininova’s forums that admins were not very committed to this policy, as appears from these forum excerpts:  

“May have been just a take down request (…) i’d say just re upload it (…) thanks for sharing”, a moderator posted. Or, in another case, a user said: “I made a mistake of downloading a shareware version of Monopoly Jr. only to find out it only allows you to play it for 15 minutes and then it becomes useless.” An admin replied: “Check the site, it’s there now”.

Furthermore, Mininova maintained categories, such as CSI or Disney. As there is preciously little Disney content in the public domain, this category had little purpose other than to help finding infringing content.

A last important reason for the judge to rule against Mininova was that the company had a commercial goal with exploiting content that it had no right to exploit.

Torrentfreak concludes that as long a portal remains non-commercial and truly neutral, in it’s filtering and categorising, it may well just remain in the limits of what is legally possible.

3-12-2009