Hotfile Claims Warner Bros. Issued Takedowns On Content It Had No Copyright Over

from the uh-ohs dept

Thu, Jul 28th 2011 1:17am — Mike Masnick

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.

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

PaulT (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 1:31am

Troll attacking the source of the story or the typo in the headline in...3...2...1...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jacob Cooper (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 1:35am

Re:
I wish... I only clicked into the article to read the comments about the typo. Maybe tomorrow there will be better ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 1:38am

Re:
Ugh. Typo bad. Fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 1:50am

Re: Re:
It's ok Mike, just remember that when life gives you melons, your keyboard is most likely dyslexic ;P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 1:51am

But all your copyright is belongs to us.
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 thread ]
Jacob Cooper (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 1:53am

Re: Re:
For the record, the original headline said... "Hotfile Claims Warner Bros. Issued Takedowns On Continet It Had No Copyright Over"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 1:57am

Re: Re:
I almost didn't comment since that usually makes one look stupid after it was fixed, but I suspected a deluge of morons if I didn't!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 1:58am

I love how they are trying to state the same bullshit response of "trade secrets" that AFACT tried in the iiNet case here in Australia a while ago. Even more interesting when their protection order request lists the likes of DtecNet, BayTSP, Peer Media, OpSec Security and MiMTiD as possible protectees.

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 thread ]
The eejit (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 2:21am

" But...But.. THINK OF THE MONEY WE'LL HAVE TO PAY!!!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FuzzyDuck, 28 Jul 2011 @ 2:31am

Re:
Except that the claim that it's some top secret stuff, is probably bullshit. More likely it is something like this:

- 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 2:58am

Re: Re:
I figure its more like:

step 1. SUE
step 2. repeat step one
Step 3. profit???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course they do., 28 Jul 2011 @ 3:28am

It's the same with YouTube.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 3:30am

Secret Plan: Lobbyist Judges
The secret MPAA plan: Work with the RIAA to get their lobbyists appointed as federal judges.

�RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases�
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 4:26am

This is precisely why we need more laws that give people the ability to shut down entire domains without a warrant. It won't be abused. We promise!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 28 Jul 2011 @ 5:26am

it would reveal their secret "anti-piracy" plans... held in a hermetically sealed iron clad save deep within their evil volcanic lair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 5:50am

Re:
> We are just helping our copyright brothers out.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 6:59am

Interesting story, but it could backfile for HotFile. Can you imagine:

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 thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 7:09am

Re:
They would never have to testify on that issue. All they have to do is provide the documentation that shows the MPAA filed a take-down and then ask the MPAA for evidence they own the copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 7:29am

Re: Re:
In a court of law, they would ask the obvious question, "how do you know it isn't theirs". They would have to explain how they came to that conclusion.

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 thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 7:35am

I don't see how an anti-piracy plan "derives independent economic value from not being publicly known". I mean, we're all going to find out what it is soon enough. Unless of course the plan involves some illegal activity and therefore they would loose a bunch of money if people knew about it. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 7:36am

Re: Re:
Which would come in a brown envelope containg a dehydrated Hooker, 3 grams of cocaine and $10,000 worth of Jefferson.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 7:44am

Re: Re: Re:
It's true we don't have the whole story. But I imagine that the discovery request probably includes a request for proof that they have copyright over the content they claim copyright over. If they can't produce that, the DMCA takedown request was fraudulent without ever having to know who does own the copyright. The discovery could also reveal materials such as junior lawyers asking their supervisors: "Do we have rights over content XYZ?" And the supervisor responding with something like: "Who cares? Just issue a DMCA take down."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 8:06am

Re:
It's not a relevant question to the case. Hotfile doesn't have to prove or know who owns the copyright but it is in a position to ask if someone making a copyright claim actually owns the copyright. I think it'd look more like this.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 8:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the problem - in the end, when they know that a large amount of the content on their site is illegal, they really do need to start paying attention.

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 thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 8:30am

Re:
I thought it was an underwater lair, oh wait that's just the record labels that are underwater or soon going to be ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is it willful ignorance to not do the research to figure out who uploaded something and whether they had the legal rights to do so? It seems like simple ignorance caused by a lack of desire to spend huge sums of money doing things which are other people's responsibility to do.

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 thread ]
Alien Bard, 28 Jul 2011 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I doubt they would be taking it to this level without solid proof of everything relating to their side of the case. I will also mention that Hotfile has very harsh anti-abuse protocols including shutting down accounts after just six strikes - exactly the same policy being pushed on the ISPs (except they came up with it all on their own). The Mafiaa's retarded progress in creating a world-wide police state where everyone is branded at birth and all civilian communications are monitored by teams of lawyers is hardly Hotfiles fault.

I know, I know, "Don't feed the trolls..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alien Bard, 28 Jul 2011 @ 9:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually had that happen to me. The company had just purchased a new pickup and parked it by the side of the road. When I arrived at work the boss tossed me the keys and asked me to pull it into the shop, all the info I had was that it was the "blue ford parked just up the road." I took the keys and tried them on the first blue ford I came to. The door key worked fine but the ignition didn't - fortunately as it turned out to be the wrong truck.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 9:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...being willfully blind really isn't something that should be tolerated.

Here's looking at you, Beryl Howell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 9:29am

... six strikes - exactly the same policy being pushed on the ISPs...

But did Hotfile agree to fix prices at $35 ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alien Bard, 28 Jul 2011 @ 9:32am

Re:
"If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear"

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 thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 10:36am

Re:
...discussed only under the cone of silence...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 10:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Hiding behind the law and being willfully blind really isn't something that should be tolerated."

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Jul 2011 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: Re:
In a court of law, they would ask the obvious question, "how do you know it isn't theirs". They would have to explain how they came to that conclusion.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe if someone tried that 'defense' in court when they were being accused of copyright infringement, they would be laughed out of court.

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 12:42pm

Re:
Price fixing and collusion.... I seem to recall these being topics in some other court cases.....

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2011 @ 11:25am

Knowing who owns what is a basic of property. We've seen banks trying to foreclose on properties they didn't own, all based on some spreadsheet. The same banks robosigned certifications. It was more than a mistake, it was fraud and negligence. There will end up being some serious repercussions over this.

I hope people who assert spurious copyright ownership, especially over public domain material, experience the same repercussions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damn Jews, 30 Jul 2011 @ 9:01pm

LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]