Bad News: Court Says Cyberlocker & Its Owner Can Be Liable For Copyright Infringement
from the secondary-liability:-watch-out dept
While the full ruling won't be out for a few weeks, a Florida court has made a horrifically dangerous ruling, saying that cyberlocker Hotfile can be liable for copyright infringement. We've been covering the Hotfile case from the beginning, and find this to be fairly surprising. The details of the MPAA's original lawsuit were astoundingly weak, based on bad inferences and innuendo, which would destroy concepts of protection against secondary liability and completely undermine the safe harbors of the DMCA. The fact that the MPAA misrepresented how Hotfile was used only made things worse. On top of that, it sounds like the judge has said that the guy who owned Hotfile, Anton Titov, is also personally liable.The specific details of the ruling will be important, because it's very important to see on what basis Judge Kathleen Williams found as she did, but the risk of massive harm to innovation and the safe harbor protections under the DMCA is very, very real. Stupidly, the MPAA is cheering on this decision, despite the fact it will likely create chilling effects that will harm the kind of innovation the movie industry needs the most these days.
I know that some people will, undoubtedly, argue that Hotfile was used for a lot of infringement -- and there's evidence to suggest that's true. But, copyright owners have always had a remedy there: go after the actual infringers. Putting liability on the cyberlocker itself now puts just about any online cloud provider at risk of getting sued. Dropbox, Box.net, Flickr, YouTube, Google and many others need to pay close attention to what comes out of this case, because pinning liability on a third party storage company will make it much more expensive for any such service to be in business. This is sad, and stupidly counterproductive for the MPAA, because what it should be doing these days is embracing services that help fans access the kind of content they want when they want it. Instead, they're actively trying to shut down innovations via copyright law.
I'm sure we'll have a more thorough analysis of the full details of the ruling once they're out.
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: anton titov, copyright, cyberlocker, dmca, dmca safe harbors, kathleen williams, safe harbors, secondary liability
Companies: hotfile, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Megaupload
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Megaupload
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if a website with thousands of users has ine breaking the law, it is an undue burden (or perhaps "impossible") for the website to track and audit every little action by each one of its users. It cannot be held liable for those actions.
I guess employing someone gives you magical powers over their actions, or at least omniscience about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These "websites" do not employ their users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Companies are responsible for the behavior of their employees, up to a certain extent. Mostly because they're the ones actually doing what the company wants to.
If some people on the tech support team would just say fuckoff to the clients (which some actually do), its the company that's responsible for hiring people like that, and letting them do bad customer service.
Its not from a "false" responsibility created through laws that it works that way, its completely "natural". If X company gives you shit support, you'll go with Y company instead, and that's why X company really don't want that happening.
Holding cyberlockers responsible for the content in their servers that their clients put there makes as much sense as holding the USPS responsible for the anthrax letters, or the airlines for shipping in terrorists or war criminals.
Moreover, I'll have to hold you responsible for the use of a few logical fallacies.
Notably, making up a strawman with what they actually meant: organizations that preach and enforce a certain ideal on others while not applying to their own people is not cool ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman ).
Trying to discredit these guys rather than countering their arguments ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem ).
Then, you clearly didn't understand the issue with privacy and enormous resources it would require to track every file transaction by everyone for a digital storage provider, then proceeded to use that incredulity as basis for your argument ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity ).
There you go. Any other arguments sir, preferably not based on fallacies ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i'm certain no one would ever abuse a consequence-free option like that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have a nice drink and a little nap now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if i allow players to put a custom background in their game and they then use the cloud backup.
Hey someone just put the mona lisa on my cloud storage, so im liable.
Do these idiots actually understand how any of this works?
Jesus maybe i should not release my games in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of these days...
One of these days all this bullshit is going to come back and bite the MPAA in the ass. Only then, will they realize that this only hurts their cause, and nobody will forgive them for it, in fact their demise will be cheered from all corners of the globe.
That day is probably a lot sooner than most of us realize... until then, keep digging...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Random file locker websites get a pass. Nothing is their responsibility and they certainly have no duty to be proactive in any way. Any misbehavior is entirely the fault of the user.
Just because you employ someone does not give you omniscient knowledge of their actions or omnipotent control of them. Likewise, if it is "infeasible" or "impossible" for a website to be aware of and control the actions of thousands of users, it must also be infeasible or impossible for an agency to perfectly control the actions of thousands of employees or contractors. You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
SO, HA, HA! You pirates keep getting shot to pieces by courts,
Oooh, here's a Pirate Mike gem: "Stupidly, the MPAA is cheering on this decision, despite the fact it will likely create chilling effects that will harm the kind of innovation the movie industry needs the most these days." -- Sheesh. Like they need or want their goods available for free. Sheesh!
Where Mike "supports copyright" but always overlooks or excuses piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Do you not realize that nobody will ever develop another cyberlocker service, legal or otherwise, if they know the law will hold them liable for the actions of that service�s users�or do you just not care about stifling innovation and preventing a fully legal technology from becoming widespread so you can �solve� the problem of piracy?
When you have nothing but a hammer, every problem looks similar to a nail�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Yeah, I DO, because I respect other people's property rights! Heck, I've often been kind of grateful for entertainments. Besides, I see no viable alternative to the present system.* It's not possible to produce content unless an exclusive chance to gain income from it is fairly well guaranteed. You pirates want to be free to STEAL content, that's all, you want to totally rob the chance of income from the producers by letting OBVIOUS infringed content be hosted for anyone to download for free, so that only the grifters running mere file hosts get income from the valuable products, not those who own actual studios and take big risks paying to MAKE content.
[* But I do object to anyone getting filthy rich from crap! -- And I consume almost none of their crap; if they had to depend on me, they'd starve. -- But it's total non-starter to say they have to let cyberlockers visibly host infringed content. -- Anyway, if you'd base opposition on Populist grounds, then you might succeed. -- My fix for not only the high prices of mere entertainment but most general problems of society is to tax the hell out of The Rich.]
If Mike supports copyright, why are the pirates here? They take him same as I do: PRO-PIRACY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Say that again, will you? Say that again to the countless number of people who today make content for free consumption by all and are still able to profit from it, without needing it to be exclusive.
You're simply ignoring reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
>>> It's not possible to produce content unless an exclusive chance to gain income from it is fairly well guaranteed."
Say that again, will you?
I left out the obvious "that anyone wants to steal".
People who make $100 million movies -- the level that Mike uses in his entirely false and misleading "can't compete" "core concept" item -- must have assurance that they'll have exclusive shot at the market to recover their "sunk (or fixed) costs".
Ya say ya can't compete with free, Binky? -- It's easy! Just forget about "sunk (or fixed) costs"!!!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923/saying-you-cant-compete-with-free-is-say ing-you-cant-compete-period.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
People invest in content, inventions, etc. because doing so will make them a profit, not because of some complex, government-grant monopoly and rent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
My rant this evening is mainly just that - a rant. But really, I wish we all could collectively come up with a solution to this problem. I know I'm not alone in this frustration and I don't want to censor anyone. I guess I just wish there was more Natural Selection left in this world.
Thank you Techdirt, and Mike for being more patient than I am!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
But you can repress free speech here, can and do..
I don't have to agree with what you say, but I do agree with your right to say it, without censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
There's more of it than you think. In fact, those who successfully demonstrate it working tend to win Darwin Awards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, asshole.
Let�s do this.
Yeah, I DO, because I respect other people's property rights!
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief: If I believe that the developers of a perfectly legal technology should not have legal liability for what the users of said technology do with it (e.g. cyberlocker services, telephones, personal computers), I must not respect other people�s property rights.
Try harder. I can both believe in �safe harbors� and respect other people�s property rights.
I see no viable alternative to the present system.
You don�t see a viable alternative because no viable, one-size-fits-all, �golden bullet� alternative exists. The Internet has made it impossible for a single business model to ever succeed over all others.
That means the playing field has finally levelled in favor of the average content creator. They no longer have to toil for years on a project they love only to have it declared �unfit for publication� by the gatekeepers of old. Musicians, painters, illustrators, animators, writers, programmers, actors, and all other forms of creative works/entertainment can now enter the world without movie studios, record labels, and other major content publishers/conglomerates deciding who gets a shot (or owning the rights to their works across any and all media for the rest of eternity).
And without those meddlesome gatekeepers getting in the way, all those creators can potentially earn more money than they would have going through the �traditional� routes. How do they do that? By using the technologies created since the Internet boom: cloud storage services to store content, self-publishing services to offer content for sale, and social media to promote content and connect with fans.
But those technologies may not even exist today if the creators of those technologies didn�t have the safe harbors necessary to protect them from the legal liabilities of people using said technologies to commit illegal acts. (Boom, back on point.) Without the spread of those technologies, the rise of the truly independent artist may never have happened. I suspect that you would celebrate that idea, however, since it would keep your precious gatekeepers in the position of power over artists.
It's not possible to produce content unless an exclusive chance to gain income from it is fairly well guaranteed.
Plenty of people produce content for free with no chance of guaranteeing income from that specific content. They do so every day. I created a piece of pixel art without the intent of gaining income from it just yesterday.
You conflate �content creation� with �income�, but you fail to realize that some people create art for other reasons (e.g. to advertise their skills, to make other people happy, to fulfill the urge to create). Until you get it through your head that everyone in the world doesn�t conflate �content creation� with �money money money gimme gimme gimme�, you won�t understand the mind of a content creator � but you will understand the mind of a gatekeeper, which I suspect you�d rather do, anyway.
You pirates want to be free to STEAL content, that's all
A.) Piracy does not equal theft. Piracy equals copyright infringement.
B.) A small fraction of content pirates download pirated content for the sake of it, yes. They will never pay for that content or support artists in any way. I acknowledge the existence of those types of pirates. (I�ve even pirated a handful of independent comics created by artists I loathe under those pretenses, if you want the truth.) But I don�t accept the assertion of �all content pirates behave this way� because no proof exists to back up this claim.
you want to totally rob the chance of income from the producers by letting OBVIOUS infringed content be hosted for anyone to download for free
And you want to see legal services such as Dropbox, Youtube, et al shut down over pirated content over which those services have no control. Dropbox admins can�t possibly know that a 10MB archive file named �Personal-Works.zip� contains, say, one hundred copyright-protected books in .txt format � but you believe the courts should hold those admins liable for infringement if even one person downloads that .zip file.
Or have I misread your assertions in this and other comments?
only the grifters running mere file hosts get income from the valuable products, not those who own actual studios and take big risks paying to MAKE content
The major content gatekeepers could theoretically partner up with filehosting services to legalize �infringing� downloads and offer them for a fair price to anyone willing to pay. That would require them to both update their business models and hand over some modicum of distributive control over to those services, however, and you and I both know that won�t happen in our lifetimes. (Much to your delight, I�ll assume.)
I do object to anyone getting filthy rich from crap!
No, I think you object to anyone that doesn�t go through the major gatekeepers (or objects to the idea of copyright in any way) getting �filthy rich�, regardless of the quality of that creator�s content.
it's total non-starter to say they have to let cyberlockers visibly host infringed content
Anyone who lets cyberlockers host infringed content without protest either doesn�t care if people share it or hasn�t gotten around to taking it down via DMCA. (Not everyone can afford a �quality� DMCA takedown bot, and you only have so many hours in a day.)
Their inaction (whatever the reason) should not put cyberlockers on the hook for the way their users make use of the offered services. And how can they know if the content infringes upon anyone�s rights? Youtube proved that Viacom itself uploaded videos over which Viacom later sued Youtube for copyright infringement.
To round off this whole comment, I have a hypothetical for you to consider. If Stephen King uploads a copy of his latest book to Dropbox and says anyone can download it without paying, why should the courts hold Dropbox liable for infringement if King�s publishing company decides to assert copyright over the �infringing� copy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okayhttp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130828/14563224342/bad-news-court-says-cyberlocker-its-owner-can-be-liable-copyright-infringement.shtml?cid=1048#addyourcomment, asshole.
Don't believe me? Microsoft's own site links to Digital River's. Just do a search at microsoft.com. KB889930 (Money) for example.
A Google search for "Windows 7" "digital river" "iso" should find the links quicker, though. The MS site is a mess. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Copyright is a utopia. It makes it impossible for the creator to enforce.
The only thing you can do is bring all the materialistically interested parties to your table and have them commit to an assurance contract. I would like to hear why you do not think crowdfunding cannot solve the free-rider problem, while my waiting to give money to a third-party with no relation to the artist for a 2nd hand copy of content at a lower value CAN solve the free-rider problem.
Never mind that copyright essentially allows the copyright holder to dictate the inflation rates of the content he is printing (just as the government is the only one allowed to print authorised money and therefore control the value of said money through its inflation rates) therefore screwing over the value of consumers (and possibly even creating bad economic bubbles). Crowdfunding avoids all this nonsense as well.
When your philosophy represses technology and mine embraces it, I can claim to be on the right side of history. And there are many derivative artists who have intellectual property rights, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
What about the next Netflix or Hulu?
Why would they start up if they'll just be held liable for their customer's actions?
It's like shutting down all the Walmarts across the country because someone raped a woman in the parking lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Sheesh. You pirates are knee-jerk caricatures.
Mike Masnick on Techdirt: "a bogus, laughable group that is spreading ideas that would do massive harm to the internet based on a near total ignorance of how things work."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
1) So why should I care? If they're not operating legally according to well-established copyright, then I want them out of business and jailed.
2) The Internet has been running off the accumulated content of the last half century or so, but now the happy times of free and easy pirating are over, largely because pirates got too bold and thought they were immune to laws. Every cyberlocker I've seen has little besides obviously infringed content. Kim Dotcom got millions by grifting off other people's property. That's not even capitalism, sonny, that's theft.
If you cannot see that, you have no business commenting. [Right back atcha, kid: I do like how you kids set yourselves up as arbiter of opinion. Go ahead and click your little censor button!]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
2: Guess what? Culture works by SPREADING the content of history around. If you censor or lock it up, then culture dies off.
If you cannot see that, you have no business commenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Have i been sleeping for the past 30 or so years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
If a cyberlocker just allows anonymous uploading of infringing content then they're quite obviously accomplices in a criminal act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couple of problems with that:
2. You're talking about thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of users, which makes the idea of 'knowing your users' completely impossible for any service that has enough users to actually pay the bills and stay afloat.
And last but not least...
3. Anonymous uploading is pretty much required for a service like that to even have a chance at getting people to use it; any service like that that told people that to use the service they would have to consent to all their files being looked over and scanned to make sure it wasn't infringing, would be a service that would go out of business before they could print out their first quarterly profit report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couple of problems with that:
A cyberlocker doesn't have to check every file for infringement. But if a content owner does find infringement, then the cyberlocker should have to pony up a name. Duh. This stuff isn't shocking to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Also, if the copyright owner wants that sort of info, then they can and should get a court order for it, which is already possible, so not sure what your point is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Hell, the MPAA was even given a tool to look for files, and they even included files that weren't infringing.
Your attempt to paint the MPAA as a completely helpless victim here is not particularly convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couple of problems with that:
There's no way the teller knows that the $1.8 million in twenties in a duffel bag is money that's being laundered either. But somehow, the banks seem to do fairly well reporting suspicious transactions and requiring a positive id of customers.
2. You're talking about thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of users, which makes the idea of 'knowing your users' completely impossible for any service that has enough users to actually pay the bills and stay afloat.
There are probably more users of bank accounts than cyberlockers. Yet the banks seem to do ok. If, like banks, they're required to know their customers, then the cyberlockers will all have the same requirements and can compete on a level playing field.
And last but not least...
3. Anonymous uploading is pretty much required for a service like that to even have a chance at getting people to use it; any service like that that told people that to use the service they would have to consent to all their files being looked over and scanned to make sure it wasn't infringing, would be a service that would go out of business before they could print out their first quarterly profit report.
Anonymous banking would be wildly popular too. But apparently criminals ruin it for legitimate users. It appears these cyberlockers have an unsound business model and need to rely on promoting criminal behavior in order to survive. Hardly a compelling argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
What makes one 700 MB zip file more suspicious than another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couple of problems with that:
So that's your answer? A Big Brother style police state?
You're the ultimate in narcissism. You don't care about the broader implications of the stupid sh*t you're asking for. You don't care about the impact on anyone else. You aren't even able to acknowledge how this will impact your own interests beyond just this moment.
Sure. Destroy personal property and create a pervasive police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Plenty of people have protested the role of banks in the current financial system.
The argument being made is not that the current system of controls on money alone is a police state but that the ability to track all data transfers everywhere by IDing each sender and receiver would be a police state (which it obviously would be). An honest mistake you've made here parsing the comment I'm sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
And who do they report it to? How do they know who really owns the copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
So you are proposing that all cyberlocker services have a human beings look at every file, and every file transfer. Maybe they should open local offices, require people to show a federal picture ID, to drop off a file, or pick one up perhaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Unless you're a pirate or a grifter that tries to make money off infringement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Just because you keep saying it, does not make it true, no matter how much you wish it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Anyone can make claims, I could say you regularly go out and mug senior citizens, but without evidence that's all they are, claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/12104822407/isohunt-still-guilty-contribut ory-infringement.shtml
"The 9th Circuit has finally ruled in the appeal of the IsoHunt case, and has found, once again, that Gary Fung is guilty of contributory copyright infringement, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in the Grokster case. They basically agree with the district court ruling, which found that IsoHunt hit on all of the factors that were present to create "inducement" (a theory of copyright that Congress had previously rejected, but which the Supreme Court decided to make exist in the Grokster case). That is, the court agreed that there was distribution of a "device or product", including acts of infringement, and (most importantly) that IsoHunt itself was promoting the product's use to infringe on copyrights."
I'm pretty that Hotfile hits all the hot buttons too.
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Gem of a non-sequitur! Man, being in the wrong on the law plus your criminally inclined impotence really make you stoopid.
I'm probably done on this topic, unless someone wants to try and get more stoopid than "Zakida Paul".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
"Someone used X for something illegal! Shut down all of X because it's ONLY used for illegal stuff!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
I don't know. When it comes to utter stupidity, he sets the bar awfully high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
I could have sworn they deliver the packages too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BAD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for artists!
Or better, you are set on denial-mode and will remain in that mode for... well, forever.
Pirates do not get hurt by this (because for one cyberlocker that goes down, three new ways to share infringing content come up), artists do.
You have never cared for artists, and you never will. You care for investors. But investors are interchangeable, while artists are not - they are unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OOTB is a 5th column troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Yeah, right. Piracy has stopped, jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a Judge Comes Unprepared
"But if there is one thing that comes out from all of those things, it is this: that litigants, clients, parties cherish it when a judge is locked in on the facts, is a hard worker, has mastered the record, has gone beyond the briefs, and really is dedicated to getting things right. And contrary-wise, it is dispiriting when a judge comes unprepared."
How right she was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm actually kindof curious at this point.. It seems that legistlators are actually in a state of denial. How bad is it going to get before acceptance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If some cloud storage company relies on infringement, then they have a bad business model.
They need to adapt or get out of the way for those that know how to function without infringment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So yeah they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A cyberlocker doesn't have to check every file for infringement. But if a content owner does find infringement, then the cyberlocker should have to pony up a name. Duh. This stuff isn't shocking to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go to the courts. If there's sufficient evidence of infringement, they can get an order requiring the locker service and ISP to turn over the information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, of course you won't, because all you want to do is be a snob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The burden of proof.
Hotfile is the accused. They don't have to explain anything.
It's their accusers that have to explain themselves.
Without a compelling argument from the Media Moguls, we must assume that Hotfile is blameless. That's how it's supposed to work in this country.
Add that to the list of basic human rights the media cartels want to destroy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This has of course already happened. From what I've seen, most of the peeps using those types of sites are doing so because it's easy.. not because they don't have alternatives, you have to spend a bit more time on the front end, but it's easy to find these alternatives...
As far as real Pirates...most of your hard core pirates are already "virtually" outside of the U.S. and operating invitation only dark nets. Even if the AA's .... feds .... or whoever get in, nothing they can really do, they lobby to shut them down and they pop up somewhere else.... if there is demand their will be product, you can't turn off human nature...
Reality is...It's all theater, politicians and judges love it...It's very easy for politicians and judges to give big media the impression that they are actually doing something by creating and enforcing one sided laws so media continues contributing money to elections, getting them re-elected so they can create and enforce more one sided laws, getting more money, get elected again.. round and round we go...
Truth is;
PRO-IP lost the war the day they handed over the ability to copy digital data to the consumer.
ANTI-IP lost the war the first time they allowed someone to own an idea.
There wont be any winners in this.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thankfully youtube had the money to fight back, and viacom was caught out on their planting of evidence, otherwise that could have gone very poorly for the creative aspect of the net(which is pretty much all of it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Voted funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well either denial or a hefty dose of self-interest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me it would have been prudent to refrain from calling this a "horrifically dangerous ruling" without the benefit of the court's decision in hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's from a Florida court, just see all the other Florida Techdirt articles for an example of the way it's going to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But the reasoning is irrelevant when you work backwards as Mike does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't a fight over copyright or morals; it's a fight over who has the most money to last a war of attrition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you were to give the MPAA a magic box with a button on top that when pressed, would instantly and permanently disable every device in the world that could be used for infringement, they would be pounding on it like madmen before you even finished describing it to them. They wouldn't stop to think that pressing the button would also disable all the devices that they rely on to make movies, or to distribute DVDs.
This is sad, and stupidly counterproductive for the MPAA, because what it should be doing these days is embracing services that help fans access the kind of content they want when they want it. Instead, they're actively trying to shut down innovations via copyright law.
What else is new. This is SOP for them. They'd turn the internet to "Read-Only" mode if they could, so that nobody but them is allowed to post anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe these cyberlockers and other players need to update their business models to reflect the current reality and state of technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would a financial institution be legally responsible if one of their clients did something wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What you're suggesting is that because one person uses a storage locker to store illegal goods, every storage locker should be opened up by the police and all the contents confiscated, even though what I had was nothing illegal, but I would like to keep my stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rather than buying the storage locker, you rent it.
And
Rather than the police opening and confiscating all your stuff it would be the duty of the storage locker's owner to know if what you store is legal or illegal.
In practice it would mean:
Anytime you want to put something inside your locker, you have to submit your stuff to a check, performed by the owner of the locker. You'd have to show him every receipt for every item or any other document proving that the item belongs to you (it could be stolen, thus illegal...)
A costly procedure, no doubt. And obviously in the end the costumer would be burdened with these additional costs.
Renting a storage locker would become so expensive that only big companies or rich people could afford it. Many storage locker renter would simply have no other choice than to go out of business.
And that's precisely what the entertainment industry wants. They don't want cyberlockers to monitor what gets uploaded. They want to make the business of cyberlockers so unviable, that they are forced to shut down their services completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cyberlockers need to function just like regular storage lockers: "I won't look in your locker, but if turns out you're doing something illegal, I'm giving up your name."
This stuff isn't hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regular storage lockers only have to give up your name if the police comes in with a judicial warrant.
This stuff isn't hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave policing to the Police.
Nope. Only the government should wield that kind of power. Giving it to corporations is just dangerous and stupid in ways that clearly you can't comprehend.
The real problem here is that society at large including law enforcement agencies don't value the problems of Big Content. So Big Content seeks ways to abuse citizens directly. Being cheap and lazy they are always seeking ways to abuse citizens that require less effort. So Big Content never stops asking for more special favors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The current reality is not that service providers are magically responsible for third party activity. I'm sorry you live in so deep a state of denial you would laughably claim otherwise. I guess in your world the phrase 'safe harbor provision' never existed or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, but the "we should ban roads to prevent drunk driving really resonates with you? That extra chromosome is really a bitch isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope it goes to SCOTUS.
WTF has this come to???
I'm questioning your financial supporters Judge Kathleen Williams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buy Horse's Heads on Amazon. FREE Super Saver Shipping
My prediction: Dodd's gonna have to play second banana for a season or two. If Hotfile appeals, the court will vacate and remand with instructions to Judge Williams on who actually drives this bus. If Hotfile quits while ahead and doesn't appeal, it's likely either someone else will eventually ask an appeals court what its significance is who will then find it wanting. Wild card: Bezos/WaPo advance a shield law for cloud service providers which will decide the question for the next while, Dodd will whine something about the Emmanuel Goldstein du jour, bill will pass (novel necessities trump fickle fashions), and life will go on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy Horse's Heads on Amazon. FREE Super Saver Shipping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy Horse's Heads on Amazon. FREE Super Saver Shipping
I'm very sure Jeff Bezos is seriously looking at moving offshore and will moments before the RIAA, MPAA, DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Buy Horse's Heads on Amazon. FREE Super Saver Shipping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to check the judges bank accounts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This made my fantasies of moving out of this country even greater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupidly counterproductive
MPAA Boss: "Gee Wally, what can we do today to be stupidly counterproductive?"
Wally: "Golly, I don't know, maybe we let's stifle innovation!"
MPAA Boss: "Yes!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they would come up with a way to encrypt the user id in their individual copy of the software / app they use to access the cloud and do away with allowing you to share your files, then it can become viable. From a programming point of view this is very simple to implement and control. Imagine using your app to access your private files from your own devices and not having to login. It's so Easy it's ridiculous. But remember Computer Science 101 says any digital system can be compromised. It's only code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blaming storage provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
No they don't - because these file hosts are not innocent hosts, but in fact a legal blind that pirates hide behind. They make it difficult if not possible to identify uploaders by not requiring information, signup details, or any of the like, and when pushed, most file lockers and related services will fight tooth and nail against releasing ANY user information of any sort.
They stopping being innocent hosts and started being defacto partners in crime, making their profits off of the copyright infringements that they tolerate and often encourage by willful blindness.
Think of this as the "shot across the bows" of Mega and a few others. Kim is going to have to work REAL hard to stay in NZ, if he makes it to the US he is absolutely toast.
(oh, and yes... TECHDIRT still censors my posts... Mike, you should be ashamed of the person you have become).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
Seriously, if people aren't ok with removing anonymity from the internet for 'national security,' a cause that is completely overblown but at least a public good, why in the flying hells would you think they'd be ok with removing it just to help out the copyright cartels? Removing the anonymous exchange of information on the internet is a non-starter period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
I keep finding posts here, here, here and here proving otherwise. You respond to posts as recent as half an hour after the post you respond to. Whatever "censoring" is happening is clearly not working or non-existent.
Go choke yourself on a DVD, Prenda fanboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given the malicious nature of "American Justice" these days, that may be an invalid assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened to safe harbor?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apply these same laws to the physical world
And we should all consider ourselves extremely lucky that people haven't taken this approach in the non-computer world. For example, (like another poster mentioned) why hasn't anyone sued Ford because a drunk driver used their car? You say Ford isn't responsible for how people use their cars? Then how is Cyberlocker, YouTube, Google, etc liable for the people who use their service?
Why shouldn't Ford know that some people will misuse their product?
And why stop at Cyberlocker? Obviously someone used an internet connection to transfer data, so why not sue the ISP? Why not sue the computer company for providing the hardware? Why not sue Microsoft, Apple, or Linux for providing the software that allows the files to be viewed and shared?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]