Hotfile Claims Warner Bros. Issued Takedowns On Content It Had No Copyright Over
from the uh-ohs dept
The legal battle between cyberlocker Hotfile and the MPAA continues to heat up. After a judge severely undercut a key claim of the MPAA, the MPAA has been acting petulantly, refusing to hand over certain documents under discovery to Hotfile. The MPAA claims it would reveal their secret "anti-piracy" plans... but the real issue may be that Hotfile believes that Warner Bros. used Hotfile's takedown tool to remove content over which it had no copyright. That would be a no-no and would certainly make the case that much more interesting...Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dmca, takedown
Companies: hotfile, mpaa, warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are just helping our copyright brothers out.
Laws do not apply to our scared copyrights!
So what if we took down content we aren't even remotely sure is ours.
So what if we took down content we didn't own.
They are pirates and because they break the law, we need to break the law!
This is different than the bogus DMCA takedowns?
There is rarely if ever anything done when they abuse the laws they demand be put into place to protect them.
Copyright is meant to be of benefit to the producers of content, but also to the public... I think we've forgotten that the people are supposed to get anything other than screwed out of these laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And we'd be happy to collect any court imposed actual and punitive damage awards.
We're all about being sure the artists get paid. Trust us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a simple answer to all this, only allow solicitors/attorneys for both sides to access the Discovery evidence under an 'in camera' system with any experts having to sign court sanctioned and court created Non-Disclosure Agreements.
I sign these things all the time, it's not hard and if any information, be it Secrets or whatever that is ever leaked by myself can land me in contempt of court at the very least.
This way no bias is shown to the evidence in any way, and nothing nefarious or otherwise can be construed by EITHER side. This is the best and most likely easiest equitable solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Pay lawmakers to push through laws.
- Discredit lawmakers and other critics.
- Lobby the US gov't to pressure other countries to pass similar laws.
- Find ways to scare people from downloading.
etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
step 1. SUE
step 2. repeat step one
Step 3. profit???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why wouldn't they, there's no reprecussions for false takedown claims, and even if it's not their content - it's competing with their content.
Win - Win for them, until we get serious reprecussions for filing false takedown notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret Plan: Lobbyist Judges
“RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hf: "They claimed copyright on something that is not theirs".
lawyer: "Okay, so who owns the copyright on this stuff?"
hf: "Oh, it's belongs to Sony:.
lawyer: "Okay, so you have a license for it from Sony, right?"
hf: "no, of course not!"
laywer: "so why is it on your service if you know it isn't licensed to be there?"
hf: "I would rather not answer that question, as it could be self-incriminating"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We also don't have the full story here, the titles could be similar, it might be something that they have the rights for in certain jurisdictions, perhaps. We just don't know.
What we do know is that there is plenty of stuff on hotfile without permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're right, we don't have all the facts, but if hotfile is smart about how they do this, they won't have to answer the admittedly embarrassing questions you mentioned above.
Also, the whole "do you have a license?" question would be easy to handle: "Our upload process says you must be authorized to upload it and that you give us a license. So I suppose we do have a license unless someone fraudulently uploaded content they were not authorized to upload. But that's not our responsibility to detect."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hiding behind the law and being willfully blind really isn't something that should be tolerated. The push to get them out of the "service provider" section seems to be based on that idea. Clearly, HotFile profits when people pay to download files, and clearly illicit files would be much more in demand. So therefore, a conclusion could be made that their business model would not work without wilfully ignoring copyright violations.
I suspect we will find that either Warner or it's related companies do hold copyright for the most part, errors do happen, but I suspect that the courts won't get upset about good faith mistakes - everyone is human, it happens. It certainly doesn't excuse HotFile's business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, all that you have demonstrated is that they might make less money without illegal downloads. That does not mean they would not make enough money to stay profitable.
And we are not talking about honest mistakes. If I think that your car is my car and I put my key in it, that is an honest mistake. If I simply assume that it is and call the cops when I see you driving away, that is being reckless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But in response to your post I would like to comment that Hotfile is actually the LEAST used service by pirates. The fact they are in business at all proves the fallacy in the idea that only pirates use such services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know, I know, "Don't feed the trolls..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's looking at you, Beryl Howell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait... Isn't this EXACTLY what the recording industry is doing? Especially when they try to get new laws enacted to try and fix a business problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"errors do happen, but I suspect that the courts won't get upset about good faith mistakes - everyone is human, it happens."
I believe the legal response to this defense would be, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Nice how some AC's have no problem 'assuming' that those being accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without any form of proof, but point out a company abusing the law and it's a 'good faith mistake'....
Shill on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Um. No. They wouldn't. Because there is no burden for Hotfile to show who holds the copyright at all. Honestly, I know you claim you like to take the piss out of people who know more than you for shits and giggles, but at the very least you should learn the basics of what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
hf: "They claimed copyright on file xxx.xxx but haven't provided evidence to support their claim."
After that I can't come up with any other dialogue, that just kinda kills it dead there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why does that phrase seem so familiar? Oh, that's right, it's the same one we keep getting thrown at us when we try to protect our individual rights to privacy. Now we get to see how one of the anti-privacy advocates behaves when the situation is reversed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But did Hotfile agree to fix prices at $35 ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too bad these companies will never be tried on RICO charges, it would only be fitting to have them dismantled and shown as the abusive protection racket promoting mafia thugs they really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope people who assert spurious copyright ownership, especially over public domain material, experience the same repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]