The US District Court of California has not agreed on an injunction that was asked by Perfect 10. This injunction was declared against the RapidShare by the adult entertainment company perfect 10. The US court mentioned that it was dismissing the request made by Perfect 10 on the basis of insufficient evidence or proof that RapidShare had violated and breached any infringement norms.

This lawsuit was filed in the year 2009, by Perfect 10 stating that RapidShare was putting up and hosting Perfect 10s Company’s image so that the members of RapidShare can use these images or download them. Perfect 10 is a paid service and its argument was based on the fact that RapidShare was using and distributing these images and therefore, financial infringement based on stealing content from Perfect 10’s website.

Perfect 10 also put across an argument that RapidShare encouraged its users to go ahead and download the adult content because it was any which ways were stolen images and content. Rapid Share’s existence itself as a file sharing based service is equal to encouragement and inducement in the eyes of P10 Company.

The District Judge, Marilyn Huff ruled this week that P10 had failed to make sufficient impact in a case of direct violation against Rapid Share. Although she did say that RapidShare had known of the infringement by its users because of the copyright notices that were sent by P10. But, according to Judge Huff P10 doesn’t have evidence to showcase the court that deliberate inducement was used. For the matter of fact, P10 could not even show enough evidence that financial damages would be borne by P10 in case an injunction was not ordered upon.

The fact, that P10 had waited for four years from the time that it first got to know about Rapid Share and waited for that amount of time to file a lawsuit didn’t help the case. Since an injunction would not serve any public interest it was denied and dismissed.

The founder of RapidShare, Christian Schmid was delighted at the decision. The thought that RapidShare does not encourage infringements of copyright like the other file-hosts, looks like it is becoming popular. The statement also mentioned that it is a major milestone and a corner turning happening in the United States. Incredibly, Schmid did mention that in the issue of public interest, the court of California had not taken much into account an odd argument that was put forth by Perfect 10. Schmid also said that the future would throw light on the increasing differences that existed between RapidShare and other illegal share hosts.

It should be taken into account here that RapidShare’s success was partly because P10 did not succeed in any kind of serous follow ups on most of its accusations. P10 had a long painful history of lawsuits filed against big companies for copyright infringement. RapidShare has been on a winning spree after the court’s decision.