Sony Hack Reveals That MPAA's Big '$80 Million' Settlement With Hotfile Was A Lie
from the of-course-it-was dept
For years, we've pointed out that the giant "settlements" that the MPAA likes to announce with companies it declares illegal are little more than Hollywood-style fabrications. Cases are closed with big press releases throwing around huge settlement numbers, knowing full well that the sites in question don't have anywhere near that kind of money available. At the end of 2013, it got two of these, with IsoHunt agreeing to 'pay' $110 million and Hotfile agreeing to 'pay' $80 million. In both cases, we noted that there was no chance that those sums would ever get paid. And now, thanks to the Sony hack, we at least know the details of the Hotfile settlement. TorrentFreak has been combing through the emails and found that the Hotfile settlement was really just for $4 million, and the $80 million was just a bogus number agreed to for the sake of a press release that the MPAA could use to intimidate others.“The studios and Hotfile have reached agreement on settlement, a week before trial was to start. Hotfile has agreed to pay us $4 million, and has entered into a stipulation to have an $80 million judgment entered and the website shut down,” the email from Sony’s SVP Legal reads.Of course, all of this is just for show. You can safely assume that none of the much lower $4 million went back to any content creators. Instead, it's likely it got plowed back into the MPAA's vast "anti-piracy" machine, allowing it to be used for other lawsuits and funding investigations by state Attorneys General.
Considering the time and effort that went into the case, it would be no surprise if the movie studios actually lost money on the lawsuit.
The good news for the MPAA is that the money was paid in full. There were some doubts if Hotfile would indeed pay up, but during the first weeks of December last year the $4 million was sent in three separate payments.
Still, is it any surprise that the industry famous both for its fictional "Hollywood Endings" and "Hollywood Accounting" where a hit movie like one of the Harry Potter films can bring in nearly a billion dollars, but still have a "loss" for accounting purposes, would create a made-up scenario in which everyone pretends many tens of millions of dollars are paid due to "infringement"?
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: copyright, file sharing, settlements, sony hack
Companies: hotfile, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Want to see the best examples of fantasy writing in history?
Hollywood bookkeeping!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disbarment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disbarment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disbarment?
My spidey sense is tingling and next week I might go searching Lexis for anything that could cause the Solicitors/attorneys major probs in the above jurisdictions (especially Australia). And yes its a form of fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disbarment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Material misstatement
I wonder if is plausible to argue that a company that knows that their industry proxy is lying could be accused of misleading the public materially, about the actual success in fighting piracy which is material to their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Material misstatement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Material misstatement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Material misstatement
Only if those fake losses were being used to evade taxes. I'll bet you that they're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just yet another example of how copyright is being turned into a magical tool to bludgeon people into doing what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An email between two people at Sony talking about the weather? Not newsworthy, and hence no one is bothering with them.
An email between two people discussing funding an AG and writing the legal documents he's sending out? Absolutely newsworthy, which is why it's being covered.
When you've got evidence that a company or group of companies is conspiring to basically buy out public officials, then you'll excuse me if I don't think 'That's private, you shouldn't talk about it!' carries much weight.
It is private to be sure(or was anyway), but it's talking about something that directly affects the public, and is therefor of interest to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The settlement is simple: 80 million is the big number, which would apply if another agreement was not reached. Now, in that reduced 4 million agreement, there may be other stipulations that must be met (such as not starting a similar service, or providing future user information and cooperating in court if called for related business, etc). If those were not met, it's very likely that the deal would revert back to the 80 million.
It also needs repeating that the MPAA and RIAA have said over and over again that they aren't suing people for the money, they are suing them for the deterrent factor against others. Part of that is keeping those very large judgements / agreements there to be used as a reminder of what may happen.
My personal guess: 4 million was about all Hotfile could manage, leaving the owners enough to live well and not have to restart their piracy based business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think this takes quite the bit of wind out of the MPAA's sails. Claiming that "pirate sites" make billions of dollars seems a lot more impressive. Not so much when they actually end up not paying ridiculous fines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What is it with you copyright fanboys? If you're going to lie, make some effort to do it properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if by some convoluted definition "two posts" equated "multiple posts on two articles", he's still visibly lying through his teeth.
Seriously, if you're going to log out to pose as a concerned sockpuppet, don't look like a complete tool doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For example, if person A uses a particular phrase or argument all the time in their speech(like say, exhibiting a pathological obsession over getting a particular person to 'answer them'), and they go away, and Person B shows up and uses the exact same phrase/argument, the odds are fairly good that they are the same person.
You don't need to check IP address of a poster, if the poster is going to provide their own identification like that.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem
That's the real reason Son¥ kicked up such a stink about the hack, isn't it? Because people are now able to find out what Son¥-produced music and films really made as opposed to what the company claims they grossed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA and certainly its fucking ilk, are pathalogical LIARS.......and these folks are essentially BUYING laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ask mike...
cycling vpn, no java/flash/cookies, spoofed/striped headers/referrers/agent.,,
Maybe (probably) there's some nsa spook out there with trick automated route timing attacks who knows exactly who I am, and what I post, and puts it all into my big ass waste of space profile, which is likely littered with inaccuracies- but how would Mike know anything about me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'No such records found'
Not a single cent of that money will end up in the pockets of the actual content creators, it's instead funneled straight to the lawyers for more lawsuits, or into the bank accounts of various politicians to buy more copyright owner(which is not the same as content creator mind)-friendly laws.
Which is funny, given the excuses for these kinds of lawsuits is supposedly to protect the content creators, yet they don't see any rewards from the lawsuits themselves, so for all the claims of the apocalyptic losses they suffer from piracy, the lawsuits don't actually seem to be any good at returning those 'lost profits' to the actual creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'No such records found'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'No such records found'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
A more appropriate analogy would be the police appropriating stolen goods for themselves instead of returning them. This would not be considered acceptable. Why do copyright holders get a free pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'No such records found'
The *AA's file these lawsuits with the excuse that they're doing it 'For the artists/creators'. To then not give those artists/creators any of the money resulting from the lawsuits simply exposes their lies. The lawsuits have nothing to do with 'protecting the creators', the creators are simply an excuse, an attempt to justify the lawsuits.
They can claim that they're suing sites/individuals due to copyright infringement all they want, but until the money from those lawsuits starts going to the creators of the infringed works, they aren't allowed to lie and claim that the lawsuits have anything to do with the creators, and get a pass on their lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
The fact one transaction is a home and the other a song is a difference without a distinction. In each a person has been payed for providing to the purchaser something of value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
It's not, the lawsuit is solely for the benefit of the copyright owner, the musician/creator is just being used to drum up sympathy and try and hide who really benefits from the lawsuit, those being the lawyers and labels.
Like I said above, file the lawsuits for copyright infringement all you want(or defend those that do), just don't lie and claim that they're 'to protect the artists', when the truth is they are anything but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
Now be fair (I know, I know... that's asking a lot from you). When you buy a house, you buy a house. When you give a label your copyright, all the label has done is loaned you money which you then need to pay off many times over because every dime the label gives you or spends on promoting you is added back to the tab you have to pay the label.
The label purchases nothing. It gives you a loan on HORRIBLE terms, and then forced you to pay it back while keeping the copyright.
A "difference without a distinction" other than that it's very, very different deal than a purchase.
Why do you so misrepresent everything to make copyright holders look better than they deserve? It's almost as if your sucking up to them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
"So we'll 'give' you this money that you can use to record your songs, though you'll need to pay it all back from the profits resulting from the music you make. Oh, and we also keep the rights to any songs you write and record as part of the deal, so even if you go elsewhere when your contract is up, the music stays with us."
If I 'give' you $100, and demand that you pay it back, I didn't 'give' you anything, I loaned you money, even if I try and claim that it's something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
Now, before you and others here go off on a tirade about creative bookkeeping, that is a separate issue from the simple concept of a label recouping its non-recurring costs before a royalty stream commences. In fact, this concept (whether or not it makes any sense is a matter for another discussion) is not at all uncommon across a broad spectrum of industries besides those involved in entertainment, and these include high tech. I personally do not recommend this concept be integrated into agreements, but I have seen it included in domestic and international R&D and production agreements enough times to know that others do not share my view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
This article covers it fairly well, but basically, when a band is conned into signing with a label, the label gets the lion's share of any profits made from the music sold. Until the band is 'recouped', that is the band has 'paid back' the money the label 'gave' them, their cut of the profits from the music is instead used to pay back the what they 'owe'.
Only after the band has fully paid back what they were 'given' do they actually make any money from their own music, until that happens, the label is raking in the cash, while the actual musicians are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
Were that a standard loan, only the incredibly stupid would even consider it. 'Oh sure, we'll give you $150K to buy a house, just keep in mind that you need to pay it back. Oh, and whether you do or not, we still own the house.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
Here's the quote in question:
A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn't mean Warner "lost" nearly $400,000 on the band. That's how much they spent on us, and we don't see any royalty checks until it's paid back, but it doesn't get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band's share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let's say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.
I do not share this information out of a Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults). I'm simply explaining why I'm not embarrassed that I "owe" Warner Bros. almost $400,000. They didn't make a lot of money off of Too Much Joy. But they didn't lose any, either. So whenever you hear some label flak claiming 98% of the bands they sign lose money for the company, substitute the phrase "just don't earn enough" for the word "lose."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
BTW, if it was as you believe a loan, then money advanced to the musicians would not be deemed "income" by the IRS. Would you care to bet on the likelihood that money paid as an advance to the musicians has been reported by them to the IRS as earned income on their 1040s? How do you think the IRS would view things? I have a good idea, and "not income because it is a loan" is not it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
As for the 'risk', unless a band is really bad(in which case the label needs to fire the moron who signed them), the fact that the label is taking something like 70% of the profits from the music means that they have decent odds of making their 'investment' back, even if the band itself never 'recoups'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
Did you really used to work as a high powered business lawyer? Lenders are ALWAYS assuming the risk that the loan won't bring a return. That's how lending works.
Furthermore, lenders will often write off loans.
A recording contract, while not *identical* to a typical loan is very certainly a form of the loan in which the musicians are required to pay back not just the advance but every other penny related to the band out of its miniscule royalties before they receive another dime. And yes, the record labels continue to claim that the money is owed in perpetuity.
The only real difference from the loan is that the payout only comes from the (miniscule) royalties or (in the case of 360 deals) from other money earned by the musicians -- rather than 3rd party income. But, in nearly every other way it's like a loan. Oh, except for the fact that even after you pay it off, the label still owns the copyright.
It's a terrible, terrible deal for musicians, which is why fewer of them seem willing to take it now that there are pretty damn good alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
The contracts typically executed between labels and musicians reflect neither of these characteristics. Money already in the musician's hand remains there, and no resort may be made to seek its return should the investment fail to realize a return.
If I take out a business loan to expand my business, but my business fails, I am nonetheless expected to pay back the full amount of the loan. If the venture contemplated by a recording contract fails, I have not seen any contract containing a provision that the funds advanced must nevertheless be paid back by the musician. What the contracts typically delineate is the order of priority for the receipt of future revenue generated by the works created under the contract. Priority of payment and the conditions associated therewith is in no way the equivalent of a loan.
Now, do not get me wrong. I well understand why such contracts have the appearance of being loans. My point is simply that risk of loss cannot be ignored, and that risk is being borne solely by a label when it invests its funds under a recording contract. If the work tanks it is the label that takes the financial hit, and not the musician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
But your insistence that it has to be paid back and that there is no risk on the lender is simply wrong. Lenders write off bad loans all the time. The risk is always on the lender.
The "risk of loss" is the same under both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
More accurately, a label contract typically (but not universally) includes a royalty provision that incorporates the recoupment of enumerated expenses prior to royalty payments being made to the musician. This is not the same as loaning a sum certain that must be repaid (typically with interest) by a date certain.
BTW, most loans are made by lending institutions where their only responsibility is to lend an agreed upon amount of money. They generally provide no other services to the debtor. The same is certainly not the case with respect to the role played by investors in venture transactions (yes, I consider the creation of a song, book, movie, software, invention, widget, and the like a venture), be they a label or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
Yes, you insisted that "a loan" needed to be paid back "come hell or high water." That's the insistence I was talking about.
The same is certainly not the case with respect to the role played by investors in venture transactions (yes, I consider the creation of a song, book, movie, software, invention, widget, and the like a venture), be they a label or otherwise.
If you consider a recording deal to be more equivalent to a venture investment than a loan then you truly have no idea what you're talking about.
A venture investment involves selling merely a small portion of the equity in your business -- yet you retain the right to the profits and a significant percentage of ownership in the equity. All a venture investment involves is selling a small ownership stake. It also does not require paying back the investment -- though there may be liquidation preferences upon a sale.
That is NOT AT ALL what a recording contract is.
There is no rational person who would view a recording deal as being closer to a venture investment than a loan. It is neither exactly like a loan or an investment, but it is A HELL OF A LOT CLOSER to a loan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
> I have seen agreements where the investment had to be recovered before royalty sharing kicked in
In short the band doesn't make anything from this arrangement. Do you not read what you type before hitting "Submit" or is this how all copyright fanboys roll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
If an advance is a loan, it has to be paid back come He** or High Water. The fact the song was a dud that earned nothing would not relieve you of your obligation to pay (just like you would have to keep up mortgage payments even if your house burns down). Thing is, I have never seen such a provision in any recording contract. The advance is the musicians' to keep, but future expectations of income are subject to the advance and other named expenses first being paid to the label before royalties are paid to the musicians. For simplicity's sake I have used the term "advance". In practice the investment typically comprises an advance payment(s) to the musicians and other expenses associated with a song's production (studio time, session musicians, production, advertising, distribution, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No such records found'
Seriously, stop. You're an insult to any organism with a functioning brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Less and less sympathy for Sony
[ 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:
And if they actually cared about 'benefiting musicians' then they'd give those musicians a cut of the money they get from the lawsuits supposedly done 'to protect them', the fact that they do no such thing however shows that they are only interested in benefiting themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isoHunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you not see how absolutely wrong and ridiculous you are here?
You are defining a loan very, very, very narrowly -- saying that it requires you to pay it back. I've already pointed out that's not true.
Yet at the same time, you define a "venture investment" incredibly broadly, such that it covers a situation that is clearly not a venture investment at all.
When myself and others here pointed out to you why the record label contract has MANY SIMILARITIES to a loan, you just go right back to "but it doesn't require you to pay it back."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Okay. Then you have to admit that tax law ALSO treats a recording contract and a venture investment *entirely* differently as well.
Yet you had no problem insisting they are one and the same.
Once again, it seems, you choose definitions that suit you and ignore it when the same rules you seek to apply to others are applied back to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You made the point that they are like an "Aereo Duck" (my phrase), they have all the hallmarks of a loan and few if any of an investment, so in practical effect they are loans. While I do not disagree that there are some similarities, on the whole they are not loans as that term is commonly understood by many otherwise rational people simply because the obligation to pay back advances is not absolute and independent of whether or not the venture is a success. Unless revenue is actually earned pay back, known as recoupment within the entertainment and other industries, never takes place and the entity making the advance is without recourse against the other party to the contract. If it was a loan the money would have to be paid back nevertheless, just like a mortgage has to be paid back even if the home covered by the mortgage burns down to a small pile of ash.
Now, I am not defending the typical structure of these types of contracts, nor am I lending aid and comfort to the labels. I am merely pointing out that agreements such as these are much more complex than people here can even begin to imagine, that in my view they are much more in the nature of a joint collaboration between the musician and label that bears little resemblance to what is typically associated with a loan agreement, and that a recoupment provision may look like a loan to the uninitiated, but most decidedly is not.
BTW, if for some reason you take umbrage with my viewing recording contracts as venture arrangements, then call them something like "development and production agreement", "collaboration agreement", or whatever other terms you believe best befit a business arrangement where one provides "ideas and their creative application" and another provides "funds and services" to achieve the mutual goal of creating a song from whole cloth, fixing it in some tangible form, and then distributing the resulting work to the public at large with the hope that it will strike a responsive chord and generates copious amounts of revenue sufficient to make the entire effort worthwhile for the benefit of all the parties.
And...if you ever have a loan forgiven, learn what happens when you are sent a Form 1099-C and what it means come income tax time. Hint, the loan amount that has been forgiven, which when received was likely not a taxable event, magically transforms in earned income, which most definitely is a taxable event unless it falls within a narrow band of exceptions specified in the IRC. Yeah, that sucks, but it does represent "an accession to wealth, clearly realized, over which the possessor retains complete dominion and control", the classical definition under our tax laws for what comprises earned income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one believes you, Slonecker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever and Slonecker just hate it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]