Bad News: Court Says Cyberlocker & Its Owner Can Be Liable For Copyright Infringement

from the secondary-liability:-watch-out dept

Wed, Aug 28th 2013 3:13pm — Mike Masnick

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

156 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Someguy, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:19pm

Megaupload
The judge was likely pressured to help set a precedent to make the Megaupload case go a little better. Hopefully it'll backfire like the rest of the DOJ's antics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:21pm

Well...
Fuck

That is all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:25pm

Ah Techdirt hypocrisy. If an organization (perhaps a government agency) employs thousands of people and one of them does something bad (illegal, against policy) it is willful "abuse" not by the individual, but by the entire organization.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:28pm

Not surprising that they'd try to shut down a site just because of a few pirates. These are the same types of people who would like to see the populace disarmed just because of a few mentally ill spree killers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marak, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:32pm

So does that mean any cloud storage i program in could make me at risk?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:38pm

One of these days...
Give the MPAA a shovel, and they'll dig their own grave.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:41pm

Techdirt routinely derides large government agencies for the misbehavior of rogue employees. Not only that, but it faults the entire agency (not the individual wrongdoers) and not being vigilant enough to prevent the misbehavior in the first place.

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:44pm

GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Are you SURPRISED by this, Pirate Mike? It's implicit in existing law and a recent decision -- I momentarily can't recall the case, but you've run it, that says indirect income is enough. -- The writing isn't just on the wall for grifters, it's in black-letter law.

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 thread ]
S. T. Stone, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:51pm

Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Of course you would cheer this.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:51pm

Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Exactly. Who care about the infringer. We need to go after the actual crooks that help infringers. Why stop there. Lets go after Microsoft, Apple, and any other OS company that allows infringement. Then from there go after the computers companies for making their systems capable for infringing. Heck lets go after the delivery companies for transporting the computers that allow for infringement. Why not go after the automakers for proving the transport to delivery these Cesspools of infringement to the infringers. Lets make it everyone else's fault except the infringers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:54pm

When a Judge Comes Unprepared
From Judge Williams' confirmations hearing, in her own words, addressing her varied experience:

"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 thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:55pm

Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Have you heard of Netflix or Hulu?

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:55pm

Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Isohunt was the relevant recent decision with indirect income from advertising:

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 thread ]
crade (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 3:57pm

I wonder how many of our basic principles are we going to shatter in the name of pretending that our current copyright setup and it's current trajectory are sustainable? Seriously how deep a hole are we going to dig before we try to climb out?

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:00pm

Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
This is nothing like Netflix or Hulu, nor will it shut down any cyberlocker that exercises due care and isn't intentionally grifting off infringed content.

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 thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:00pm

I guess Ford will now be liable for drunk driving? Or Budweiser?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:01pm

Re:
No, no it's ok, it's different because internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:04pm

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
This is going to have wide ranging implications for ALL providers of cloud storage/computing and will set the entire industry back years. If you cannot see that, you have no business commenting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re:
People can get Internet in their cars now so I think that counts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:06pm

Re:
They are deliberately setting the cloud storage/computing industry back years. Between these clowns and the NSA, I am surprised there even is an industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
I suppose you want all roads shut down too because some people drink and drive?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:09pm

Re: Re: Re:
Nah, the internet is a boogie man and only applies to things they don't like... The stuff that is helpful isn't actually using the internet, thats just a magic feature that the car makers gave them :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:11pm

It will just drive cyberlockers etc. out of the US and they will use non US servers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:12pm

Re: Megaupload
This decision will surely be appealed if it can be appealed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:15pm

Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
@ "S. T. Stone": "Of course you would cheer this."

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
@ "Zakida Paul": "This is going to have wide ranging implications for ALL providers of cloud storage/computing and will set the entire industry back years."

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:23pm

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
"t's not possible to produce content unless an exclusive chance to gain income from it is fairly well guaranteed."

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 thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:24pm

So, when's the MPAA going to be held accountable for making the movies that we're all pirating??? By that ruling, the MPAA can be held accountable because they provided the material that is infringing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
@ "Zakida Paul" : "I suppose you want all roads shut down too because some people drink and drive?"

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 thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:29pm

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Of course, I see no ability of a cyberlocker to exercise enough due care under the sttrictures you devise. I have repeatedly opined about ways to legally use a cyber locker that looks infringing, but isn't. Moreover, the basis for this ruling is (aka, the full ruling) isn't out yet, so you have no idea if their was evidence that they encouraged infringement. And you have to define "Intentionally grifting". Because the ISOHunt case you cite below ruled effectively that if you make money on ads and your service *could be* used for infringement, you are, as your put it, "Intentionally grifting". The ISO Hunt case ruling made no solid determination of encouraging infringement, or inducing infringement. Just that infringement occurred using the site. Rather then rule, as other judges have, that the adherence to DMCA takedowns indicated willingness to police the site, the judge ruled that because they made money, they pierced the veil on their safe harbors. And that means no amount of due care CAN protect you if you make money. It completely guts the intent of safe harbors, and prevents any due care defences. If you can show that your service could be used for infringement, and was used for such for any length of time despite adherence to DMCA takedown requirements, your guilty. THere is no level of due diligence sufficient to beat that standard in any environment where the User is including data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
@ "Rikuo":
>>> 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 thread ]
unfukkingbelievable, 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:34pm

I can't wait until some amateurish filmmaker decides he can make more money by uploading his garbage film to a cyber locker ..and then turns around and sues the locker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
But again, we know that not to be true--there are thousands of examples of investments being made in content around the world both today and before the modern era of copyright.

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 thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
1: The fact that so many people ignore copyright means that copyright is against natural rights. Copyright is SUPPOSED to be for a limited amount of time. The fact that it's now forever (don't give me any sort of "it's still limited" BS, if it's under copyright for longer than i'll be alive, it's forever) means that the contract, the spirit of copyright is broken, thus people ignore it.

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 thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Sorry, ootb, but that *IS* what you're arguing.

"Someone used X for something illegal! Shut down all of X because it's ONLY used for illegal stuff!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scothony (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 4:56pm

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Alright, I have to say this finally. I love Techdirt! 'Tis the first and last thing I read every day. But I've been noticing a trend in my reading habits lately, regarding one of my favorite parts of this site - the comments. More often than in the past, I've been skipping the comments section because of OOTB. Even when his comments are hidden, it still takes away from the flow of the wonderful dialogue emanating from Techdirt! I'd rather he or she simply disappeared, but that's not likely to happen...:-(

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 5:00pm

Re:
*cough*John Steele*cough*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Togashi (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 5:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Every cyberlocker I've seen has little besides obviously infringed content.
Funny, everything I've seen on cyberlockers has been perfectly legitimate. Guess we find what we're looking for. Video game mods and personally developed games are very frequently distributed through cyberlockers such as Rapidshare, Mediafire, and 4shared.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 28 Aug 2013 @ 5:08pm

Okay, asshole.
You want both barrels? I have a couple of hours to kill.

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 thread ]
AJ (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 5:08pm

Re:
"It will just drive cyberlockers etc. out of the US and they will use non US servers."

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 thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re:
Yep, someone already tried that... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 5:55pm

"I'm sure we'll have a more thorough analysis of the full details of the ruling once they're out."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 6:08pm

...I'm sorry, but who actually uses Hotfile? This is Rapidshare all over again. Go after a gimped filehost, bleed them dry until they comply.

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 thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 6:14pm

Re:
Sure, all u have to do, is pull a prenda: upload infringing material on a competitor's website, or storage service, then get los federales to send them up the river, no more competitor...
i'm certain no one would ever abuse a consequence-free option like that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jameshogg (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 6:20pm

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Your Luddite mentality bores me and is too predictable.

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 thread ]
Rekrul, 28 Aug 2013 @ 6:22pm

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.

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 7:07pm

Sweet. Another federal court rendering a decision placing responsibility right where it belongs. And before Rikou, Zakida Paul or one of the other dopes talk about this being like banning cars to prevent drunk driving- consider that this is no different than the financial ecosystem where participants have a legal obligation to guard against wrongdoing taking place within their own systems. Whether money laundering, fraud or other crimes- those institutions making money providing financial services have a responsibility to guard against and prevent illegal activity.

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 thread ]
Avantare, 28 Aug 2013 @ 7:09pm

Hope it goes to SCOTUS.
And the pressing arguments by the defendants will be a funky diaper butt load analogies. Sue the car makers for drunk driving, sue the gun makers for crime committed with one, my child wanted to know if a cat would pant and put it in the dryer. Sue Westinghouse!!!

WTF has this come to???

I'm questioning your financial supporters Judge Kathleen Williams.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 7:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
I'm probably done on this topic, unless someone wants to try and get more stoopid than "Zakida Paul".

I don't know. When it comes to utter stupidity, he sets the bar awfully high.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 7:27pm

Re:
Yes the two issues are precisely analagous.

Have a nice drink and a little nap now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 7:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Mike just might be working out that free speech is sometimes speech you don't agree with as well as what you do.

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 thread ]
Jonathan, 28 Aug 2013 @ 8:14pm

Buy Horse's Heads on Amazon. FREE Super Saver Shipping
Chris Dodd's lips may have a direct line to the Administration's ears, but Jeff Bezos has the Washington Post, an indirect line to everyone inside the Beltway and many beyond. Dodd may represent the propaganda arm of the USG, but Bezos represents the locking-in of feudalism. Bezos will move himself, his business, and his crap jobs to China before he submits to such a regime, which could be acutely embarrassing after Obama praised Amazon as the future of the middle class!

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 thread ]
Sacredjunk, 28 Aug 2013 @ 8:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
"2) The Internet has been running off the accumulated content of the last half century or so.."

Have i been sleeping for the past 30 or so years?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Giannell, 28 Aug 2013 @ 9:01pm

I have a feeling the MPAA's so-called "victory" won't last long and Hotfile will appeal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sacredjunk, 28 Aug 2013 @ 9:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
So where's the Yes / No answer to Zakida's question?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sacredjunk, 28 Aug 2013 @ 9:13pm

Re:
That would be a good analogy if the people working in the cyberlocker development team uploaded any copyright material

Would a financial institution be legally responsible if one of their clients did something wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 9:25pm

Re: Re:
You mean like money laundering? Yeah, it happens all the time. Ever hear of HSBC?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 9:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
People are probably laughing too hard to answer. Glad to see he has the support of fellow morons, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 9:32pm

Re: Buy Horse's Heads on Amazon. FREE Super Saver Shipping
This is the best piece of fantasy/fiction I've read in awhile. You should turn this into a novel. Unlike some self-published, talentless, wannabe writers around here- your brand of fantasy could really sell. At least to The Onion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 9:50pm

BAD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for artists!
You still don't get it.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 9:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Nope. All a cyberlocker will need to do is make sure that a copyright owner has some form of remedy against the actual person that has infringed copyright. It's called knowing who your users are.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 10:04pm

Re: Re:
No they're not.

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 thread ]
Digger, 28 Aug 2013 @ 10:12pm

Time to check the judges bank accounts
The offshore ones of course. Must be close to retirement time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 10:28pm

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Steal? It's called copyright for a reason numbnuts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wwwarea, 28 Aug 2013 @ 11:07pm

Wow, great.

This made my fantasies of moving out of this country even greater.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In the Red, 28 Aug 2013 @ 11:12pm

OOTB is a 5th column troll
I seem to think that he/she isn't really what he/she represents. Especially if he/she arguments are nothing but the run of mill fallacies etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 11:16pm

Couple of problems with that:
1. There is no way for the owner of a cyberlocker to know what is and is not an infringing work before being told, and even then considering the laughable 'accuracy' of DMCA filing services and those knowingly filing false claims(ala Viacom) there's still no way to be totally sure.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2013 @ 11:26pm

Re:
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:33am

Re: Re: Re:
No, they rely on users uploading content. If they have to check each upload against the sum of human creation in the last 120 years (which I guess they need to get licensed)it's not only going to be slow as hell but also extremely costly.

So yeah they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 1:13am

Re: Re: Re:
I keep seeing that line brought up, 'relies on infringement', and I have yet to see it actually explained. What exactly does it mean for a cyberlocker service to 'rely on infringement' as their business model?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 2:13am

Re: Re: Re:
I buy a storage locker in California, pay my fees and just use it to store extra stuff I can't fit into my house (like boxes, electronics, seasonal clothing, whatever), but someone else uses the one right next to mine to store drugs.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 2:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hm, the analogy is not quite fitting:

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 2:57am

Re: Well...
It seems there's a mistake in the title of this article: After 'news', the words 'for me and the pirates' was omitted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:03am

Re: Re: Well...
Probably because pirates won't be affected by it for more than 5-minutes tops, and Mike doesn't know your name, so couldn't very well add it to the title. Nice of you to admit to it though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:07am

Re: Couple of problems with that:
No it wouldn't.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you ask Hotfile?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No shit. The cyberlocker would only give up the name if the legal owner can prove infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Innocent until proven guilty, yup, that's the healthy way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 4:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So 'any service that potentially hosts infringing files'(which is every service that accepts any user submitted content), good to have that cleared up and glad it's so focused and reasonable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 4:30am

Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
That assumes they have a name to pony up, a vast majority of people don't use their real names online.

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 thread ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:07am

Re: Okay, asshole.
I've recently bought a Kindle for my reading needs and I downloaded a bunch of ebooks on TPB. OMG PIRATE! Except that... No. I own all the hardcovers for most of the books downloaded (and the rest is in public domain here in Brazil at least - Tolkien is still locked in the US if memory serves). I also have an original key for Microsoft Windows 7 but the physical media doesn't work anymore. I promptly downloaded a copy from TPB. I also have Theme Hospital (game) original CD but I downloaded the GOG version yesterday (it's $5 on the site). Or my only Assassins Creed copy for PC (I bought it before deciding ubisoft is ran by morons and doesn't deserve my money) that I downloaded the DRM free version because their drm is that annoying. The issue is much more nuanced than what the blunt thugs at the MAFIAA want to make it seem. A file anywhere on the net is NOT infringing per se.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:29am

Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
DMCA.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you explain, since you're the one who brought it up and are so sure about it?

No, of course you won't, because all you want to do is be a snob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, and bearing the hit-and-miss accuracy of the RIAA/MPAA over the years, your "prove infringement" is barely worth the paper it's printed on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shon Gale, 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:32am

It's all because ComCast and Time Warner want to be your media distribution provider. They are working on making cable TV content available at anytime. So if you miss Sponge Bob you can watch it later just by saying Sponge Bob. If we could do away with TV scheduling we might not have to download anything because we could watch it anytime we choose. You know it would be great to sit down on Saturday and say Blue Bloods when I had time to watch it and I was awake, and voila there is the last Blue Bloods. Instead under the current system of scheduling they make you download, because if you missed the showing you have no other option. So I am a bad person because I download shows that were already shown on TV. I don't see what's wrong with that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jasmine Charter, 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:37am

stupidly counterproductive
Stupidly counterproductive for the MPAA. Isn't that pretty much their motto?

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 thread ]
Shon Gale, 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:42am

The problem with cloud storage of your media or any other files is that it can be shared. The current method makes it too easy to give your friend access to your account simply by sharing your login (it's done all the time). Then you are inviting copyright infringement.
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 thread ]
F.J. Bergmann (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:46am

blaming storage provider
It's like saying the manufacturer of a pen used to sign a bad check is liable for fraud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:00am

Re: Couple of problems with that:
1. There is no way for the owner of a cyberlocker to know what is and is not an infringing work before being told, and even then considering the laughable 'accuracy' of DMCA filing services and those knowingly filing false claims(ala Viacom) there's still no way to be totally sure.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:01am

Re:
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.

But the reasoning is irrelevant when you work backwards as Mike does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:07am

MPAA and others of the entertainment industry are still going down the road thaqt if they can get every other service shut down, theirs will be the one that everyone flocks to. it doesn't matter what is said and what is done, you cannot put sense where there is no room! when an industry is led by a total fucking moron like Dodd, who hasn't got the common sense of an idiot, that industry is in deep shit! anyone with brains that runs a business looks to see what customers want, what their competitors are supplying and how much success they are having. when, as in the case of fils sharing, every other service is doing better than you, you have to change what you are doing, how you are doing it and what you are supplying. the best way is never to close down all the competition, trying to ensure that you have the only opening to go to. that is a big mistake. the implications of this ridiculously bad ruling, done just to please the entertainment industries, are immense. i am waiting to see how the courts deal with the endless stream of '2nd or 3rd party liability' in the future, because everything either affects or is affected by something else. nothing can exist by itself. if it could, nothing would ever progress or evolve to reach new heights, heights that this ruling is trying to stop from happening!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
horse with no name, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:14am

Really?
". But, copyright owners have always had a remedy there: go after the actual infringers."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:15am

Re: 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.

What makes one 700 MB zip file more suspicious than another?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
No more stupid than the idiotic "you wouldn't steal a car" analogy. The reason I went with an auto themed analogy myself is that you lot seem to love them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:40am

Mike, you're assuming that that isn't the intent.

Given the malicious nature of "American Justice" these days, that may be an invalid assumption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:41am

Re: Buy Horse's Heads on Amazon. FREE Super Saver Shipping
Chris Dodd and his ilk are doing a lot of good work. They should be commended for making the US an unfriendly place to set up a company that does business on the internet. They should also be commended for their efforts to drive an and all IT and IP intensive companies and jobs offshore.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 7:04am

Since the NSA has a copy of all the files they too would be liable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed the Engineer, 29 Aug 2013 @ 7:44am

Re: 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.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 8:39am

Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
I don't see the harm in requiring positive identification for users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 8:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Of course there's no harm in it.

Unless you're a pirate or a grifter that tries to make money off infringement...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 8:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
That's it exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 9:22am

Re:
Maybe, but then again, the NSA also has all the dirt on everyone who could do anything to them. Why else do you think the NSA always gets away with zero oversight or consequences?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 9:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least where I live in order to rent a storage locker you have to submit proof of your identity. I assume you're ok with that for a cyber locker?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
At a financial institution every transaction over $10,000 is reported.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 29 Aug 2013 @ 9:59am

Re: Couple of problems with that:
> At a financial institution every transaction over $10,000 is reported.

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 thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 29 Aug 2013 @ 10:03am

The burden of proof.
> Why don't you ask Hotfile?

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 thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 29 Aug 2013 @ 10:08am

Leave policing to the Police.
> No shit. The cyberlocker would only give up the name if the legal owner can prove infringement.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
So why don't you go set yourself on fire in front of Citibank in protest of the big brother state they're promulgating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 10:25am

Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
SO, HA, HA! You pirates keep getting shot to pieces by courts

Yeah, right. Piracy has stopped, jackass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 11:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Or unless you're of interest to a government (any government) or law enforcement agency because of your political beliefs or associations. Or unless you've simply pissed of the wrong powerful person. Or unless you're the next designated target of a vigilante group, or unless you're a journalist. and so on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 11:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Because the only possible use for anonymous file hosting is infringement. I can't imagine why anyone else would ever want to use such a service because I'm safe in my privileged space.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DP, 29 Aug 2013 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Funny how this OOTB character (substitute "troll" for that, I think) always seems to be very much in the minority, opinion-wise, whenever he spouts his own particular brand of top-grade cattle excrement. Don't actually hear many people in agreement with his high-handed ludicrous ravings, so.....Conclusion....HE must be the one who's got everything wrong and everyone else is right. I will certainly drink to that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
It's telling that you think data in general should be operated in the same way a fiat currency issued by a government is operated. That you think this is a strong analogy that makes a good argument for your case is absolutely ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
A few things:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
That's because you can't see past your own privilege.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why there's zero public outrage over the NSA scandals. Oh wait, we haven't slipped into some nebulous fantasy world where no one cares about privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:08pm

Re:
Best case scenario, it's not horrifically dangerous at all and the MPAA is just a lying sack of shit. Sounds like win win really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:11pm

Re:
It's really different from the financial ecosystem for a lot of reasons not the least of which is that the public interest in regulating the movement of money, particularly large sums of it, is far stronger than the public interest in regulating every form of data transfer ever. This analogy you've crafted is simply ludicrous.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Okay. So how does that apply to my personally created 700 MB movie file, to which I own the entire copyright, versus my infringing 100kb jpg?

And who do they report it to? How do they know who really owns the copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which hasn't been done here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
Setting up fake receipts and dummy accounts isn't something their clients did, it's something HSBC did. Try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:25pm

Re: Really?
Obviously we should track everyone's activity online all the time because piracy. It's the only way to be sure.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Which is why we should make fedex, ups, and the usps liable whenever something illegal is shipped using their services seeing as how we've clearly establish that there should be liability when one party sends information to another party using the facilities of third party. Delivered a bootleg DVD? Secondary infringement. Frankly the delivery guy should be personally liable. Doesn't he know DVD size packages could have DVDs in them?! This stuff isn't shocking to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Techdirt is a piracy apologist site. What do you expect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 1:26pm

Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Fedex, UPS and the USPS all monitor and examine packages moving through their systems and cooperate with law enforcement. Way to fall on your stupid face in epic style.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Couple of problems with that:
Says the two AC's who didn't log in, provide your names, or provide any other form of identification... have something to hide you two, or is that just double-standards showing it's ugly head?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re:
It's really different from the financial ecosystem for a lot of reasons not the least of which is that the public interest in regulating the movement of money, particularly large sums of it, is far stronger than the public interest in regulating every form of data transfer ever. This analogy you've crafted is simply ludicrous.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
In the same way that someone telling a firefighter how better to put out blazes is a 'fire apologist', sure.

Just because you keep saying it, does not make it true, no matter how much you wish it did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Considering the posts here, and that the owner of this blog, Mike Masnick, has multiple gigs of pirated material on his hard drives, is it really surprising that Techdirt is known as a piracy apologist site?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
And your proof for that accusation is...?

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Reporting/hiding comments is not censorship in any meaningful interpretation of the word, given it takes all of one click to view the 'censored' post. Rather, it's more like putting a sign up, warning people that the post in question is trollish, insulting, or offensive enough that they would be better off avoiding it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Green Pirate, 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:35pm

Whatever happened to safe harbor?
Whatever happened to 17 USC � 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 3:49pm

Apply these same laws to the physical world
Why do people keep suing the provider? Is this because they don't know better or because the provider has deeper pockets than the individual?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
What about those services on GNU/Linux? Not available? I only trust Linux.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 5:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
Like Viacom uploading material to Youtube and then suing Youtube for copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Togashi (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Multiple gigs? So like... 3 movies? That's a pretty strong accusation with exactly no supporting evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Togashi (profile), 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Yeah, complying with DMCA notices is such a great way to spit in the face of law enforcement. That'll teach them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Evidence has never been a troll's strong suit. There's no other way to explain the RIAA's vindictive campaigns against children and grandmothers. Evidence would ruin their entire business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 6:19pm

Re: Really?
You keep claiming that you're being censored.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2013 @ 11:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
But the phone company doesn't record and monitor all calls on their systems. Storage facilities do not examine the contents of lockers they rent out. Etc ad nauseum. You're arguing apples and oranges, here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 Aug 2013 @ 1:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That wasn't a money-grab, so much as trying to shut down a competitor while at the same time creating legal precedent that would keep any future competitors from ever showing up.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2013 @ 5:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try at bullshit, but Google/YT was blatantly breaking the law and when the appeal is over, will be paying a hefty settlement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 30 Aug 2013 @ 6:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if a content owner does find infringement, then the cyberlocker should have to pony up a name.

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 30 Aug 2013 @ 6:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try at bullshit, but Google/YT was blatantly breaking the law and when the appeal is over, will be paying a hefty settlement.

Voted funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2013 @ 8:41am

Re:
The difference here is responsibility. A corporate or government entity has the responsibility to represent all of it's actions in a certain way regardless of who in that organization is at fault. They do not have responsibility over who and how their product is used. Otherwise Glock would be responsible for all the shootings with the guns they sell and Microsoft would be charged with all the crimes associated with malware-infected Windows systems.

These "websites" do not employ their users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
solidyote (profile), 31 Aug 2013 @ 12:03pm

Re:
There's quite a huge difference between both sir.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 31 Aug 2013 @ 9:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I've seen denial before, but good ghandi does that one take the cake.

Well either denial or a hefty dose of self-interest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 2 Sep 2013 @ 8:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! &quot;Safe harbors&quot; not for pirates!
I guess I just wish there was more Natural Selection left in this world.
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 thread ]
Joe2, 9 Sep 2013 @ 5:04pm

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.
Err, you do know that Digital River offers free, 100% surely virus-free ISO images of Microsoft Windows 7, 100% legally, right? I used this on my brother's Acer because we had to use a new hard drive and Acer doesn't provide discs.

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 thread ]
Joe2, 9 Sep 2013 @ 5:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
Actually, the issue is that people expect a rented server to not have malware installed By Decree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe2, 9 Sep 2013 @ 5:25pm

Re: Re: Buy Horse's Heads on Amazon. FREE Super Saver Shipping
Wait until the same people who came up with meth laws decide to ban 'digital precursors'. I mean, they outlawed practically everything BUT the allergy drugs being OTC, so surely they can justify banning 'hacking tools' like boot CD's and compilers and debuggers and OSes. XD Note: Well OK, 'only' a few pages-long list of Mostly Harmless [TM] stuff was banned, like iodine. Not literally everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 16 Feb 2014 @ 6:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Actually, Fed Ex, UPS and the USPS don't do anything more than scan the labels. Maybe if you worked for them at one point in your life, or worked at all, you'd know that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2014 @ 9:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD NEWS! "Safe harbors" not for pirates!
Actually, Fed Ex, UPS and the USPS don't do anything more than scan the labels.

I could have sworn they deliver the packages too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]