Wanted: The Truck Driver Who Lost His Job Due To File Sharing

from the we're-waiting... dept

Capitol File Magazine has a bit of a puff piece on the MPAA's Chris Dodd one year into his job at the lobbying organization (a job he took just months after promising he'd never work as a lobbyist). The piece isn't really that enlightening, other than an admission from Dodd that he didn't know anything about the movie business before he took the job. He probably should admit that he still knows nothing about the internet either, which is a pretty bad place to be if part of your job is trying to guide the movie industry into the future. In fact, the writeup notes that Dodd's one skill is his ability to push legislation through -- and then doesn't mention how he completely flopped on that front with SOPA/PIPA.

However, what the article does do is highlight Dodd's new talking points about how he's really protecting blue collar jobs, not Hollywood studio execs and movie stars:

“The first year has been a little chaotic,” says Dodd. “There’s been a steep learning curve. I bought into the notion that this was a redcarpet, Oscar-night kind of business. Over 2.2 million Americans are employed by the industry. Most of them are in blue-collar jobs, involving the people who drive the trucks and set up the lights. I didn’t know that when I started.”

It’s not just the names on the marquee, but the rank-and-file workers who are impacted by intellectual property infringements, says Dodd. “People think nothing of stealing from Charlie Sheen,” he explains, “but they might care if they realized they were stealing from someone who drives a truck.”

Yup. It's all about the truck drivers. Of course, the 2.2 million number is wrong. The Congressional Research Service says that number is less than 400,000. And, when we dug into the actual numbers, it shows that jobs in actual movie making are on the increase. The only real decrease seen in movie jobs has been in the number of people employed by theaters. But that's got nothing to do with piracy at all, since theater revenue has been going up and up and up (with a slight dip just last year). The job losses there have been about consolidation in theaters and the rise of giant multiplexes that employ very few humans.

That said, since Dodd mentions that poor, poor truck driver twice, I'm curious of a couple things. Which truck drivers get a cut of movie royalties? I'd like to know. Second, can anyone find me the truck driver who lost his job because of file sharing? I'd like to find that guy.

Filed Under: blue collar workers, chris dodd, movies, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case

from the reasonable-brief dept

We've noted that the MPAA's case against Hotfile is surprisingly weak, and seems to be arguing that usage alone is proof of Hotfile's complicity in any infringement done by users. This is a strange argument, which is more smoke and mirrors than anything legit. It's as if the MPAA believes that if it just screams "but... but... piracy!" loud enough, the judge will forget to look at the actual law. However, in a bit of a surprising move, Google is trying to step in and inform the judge on one key piece of the case, with an amicus brief.

At issue is the standard used to judge whether or not the DMCA's safe harbors apply. Obviously, Google has a vested interest in having previous court rulings on the DMCA's safe harbor followed in this case, not just because those rulings protect Google, but because they're the only way the DMCA actually makes any sense. Google's argument is pretty clear and well-argued: as the DMCA safe harbors themselves, the massive DMCA caselaw and the Congressional history of the DMCA all show in pretty great detail, to lose the DMCA's safe harbors, a company has to have specific knowledge of infringement, not just general knowledge that its tool is used for infringement. The MPAA's argument is effectively the opposite -- and is completely nonsensical: that if it can show that enough people infringed, then it should be assumed that Hotfile could have stopped the infringement. As the Google argument explains simply, that's a clear distortion of the law. In fact, they point out that the MPAA is so far off the reservation on this one that it can't even find DMCA cases to support its position, instead choosing two cases that have nothing to do with the DMCA.

Amusingly (and ridiculously), the MPAA is so freaked out about Google explaining the law on this one key point that it's asking the judge not to allow the brief, suggesting that rather than providing a separate third party view, Google's brief is really just re-arguing Hotfile's position. That's an argument that makes little sense, though. Google's brief is pretty narrowly focused on just one key issue in the much larger case surrounding Hotfile: it's merely asking the court to make sure it follows the same standard used in most other courts in the country. It makes no specific statements concerning Hotfile's actions at all. The issue Google raises is important because this court and this Circuit have not specifically ruled on the DMCA safe harbors -- a fact you can bet the MPAA knows well. No doubt, the MPAA is hoping that a different ruling in this case can lead to split that would (it hopes) lead to all of those many other DMCA rulings protecting safe harbors being overturned.

I'm sure that some simplistic commenters may try to summarize this case as Google defending Hotfile, but the specifics of the filing make it pretty clear that's not what's going on at all. It merely points out the well accepted standards and practices for removing DMCA safe harbor protections -- which are quite different than the interpretation of the safe harbors that the MPAA gave the court in its motion for summary judgment.

Filed Under: actual knowledge, dmca, red flags, safe harbors
Companies: google, hotfile, megaupload, mpaa

MPAA Asks For Megaupload Data To Be Retained So It Can Sue Users... Then Insists It Didn't Really Mean That

from the how-not-to-win-fans-or-build-businesses dept

There are days that the actions of the MPAA just make you shake your head and wonder just what goes through the minds of the lawyers running that insane asylum. The latest is the news that they're considering suing Megaupload users directly, as if their reputation wasn't already mud. The details actually have to do with the fight over whether or not the data on Megaupload's servers is going to be deleted. There was a point, soon after the shutdown, when it was suggested that, due to a lack of anyone able to still pay the bills, the hosting provider that Megaupload used, Carpathia Hosting, would soon wipe the servers clean. That struck me as odd, because I would have thought that the data on those servers represented evidence in a criminal case -- but for reasons still not clear, the government insists it has no need for the data and that Carpathia is free to delete it. I won't even begin to speculate over the fact that the person who sent the letter to Carpathia suggesting this also happens to be the BSA's former head anti-piracy VP. An ex-anti-piracy exec for an industry lobbyist, now running a criminal anti-piracy case, basically telling the data center to delete evidence? Hmm...

Others, of course, were concerned about both the evidence that could exonerate Megaupload as well as the legitimate files that were going to be lost -- so there was an effort made to try to have the files retained, and the hosting firm has said (for now) that they won't delete the data, despite the fact it is costing the company $9,000 per day to maintain these servers and the 25 petabytes of data they contain. But it wants to.

So here's the surprise. Those fighting to keep the data have an unexpected ally: the MPAA. Yes, you see the MPAA wants to keep its options open and is considering directly suing users who may have used Megaupload for infringement -- and for that to work, they'd need that data to remain available. This came out in a filing by Carpathia to the court, in which it notes that there is significant interest in keeping the data around, but it wants out of the burden of paying for all of this and having to retain the data itself. The filing notes that Megaupload itself wants the data for its defense, the EFF wants to help users get legit files back... and the MPAA wants the data to sue people. Apparently, unbeknownst to the public until now, the MPAA sent Carpathia a letter arguing in agreement with Megaupload and the EFF that the data shouldn't be destroyed, but only because the MPAA wants to have access to the data in case it decides to go hogwild and completely and permanently destroy its reputation by suing users directly. From the letter the MPAA sent Carpathia:

Independent of the ongoing criminal proceeding, the Studios have civil claims against the operators of Megaupload, and potentially also against those who have knowingly or materially contributed to the infringement occurring through Megaupload...

... In light of the potential civil claims by the Studios, we demand that Carpathia preserve all material in its possession, custody, or control, including electronic data and databases, related to Megaupload or its operations. This would include, but is not limited to, all information identifying or otherwise related to the content files uploaded to, stored on and/or downloaded from Megaupload; all data associated with those content files, the uploading or downloading of those files, and the Megaupload users who uploaded or downloaded those files; all data reflecting or related to payments to third parties (including Carpathia) by the Megaupload operators; all data reflecting or related to payments to the Megaupload operators, including by users and other third parties, all electronic records regarding communications by the individuals involved in Megaupload's operations; and all internal documents and communications regarding Megaupload.

Of course, recognizing just how bad its own lawyers' statements are on the matter, the MPAA has sent in its PR folks to try to clean up the mess. Almost immediately after David Kravets at Wired published the original article highlighting this, MPAA PR people started calling him insisting that it wasn't true at all. MPAA PR VP Howard Gantman told Kravets that the MPAA has no intention to sue users, despite the clear language of the letter it sent Carpathia.

“The reason we did that filing so that there is a possibility that litigation might be pursued against Megaupload or various intermediaries involved in Megaupload’s operation. We’re not talking about individual users...”

That's not what the plain language of the letter itself clearly states -- but never let facts get in the way of a good yarn spun by MPAA PR people desperately trying to make the organization seem not 100% evil. But, this is how the MPAA thinks: lawyers shoot their mouths off with threats first, and the PR folks are left to do cleanup. That's what happens when you put the lawyers in charge, without any real knowledge of technology, business or just how ridiculously bad they make themselves look with their extreme positions. And then they wonder why no one sides with them in debates like the one over SOPA. Perhaps it's because their position is so crazy that anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would have known to stay miles away. But that's not how the MPAA rolls. It goes to crazytown and beyond, and then just denies it was thinking about suing users, despite claiming exactly that.

Filed Under: copyright, data, lawsuits
Companies: megaupload, mpaa

Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy

from the come-on dept

Last month, we wrote about how the RIAA was backing a version of the .music top level domain that would only allow "accredited" musicians to get domains with a .music suffix. Their key concern, as always, was that .music would be used for infringement. It appears that it's not just the RIAA who's concerned, and not just about .music. Paul Keating points us to the news that various other legacy entertainment industry groups, including the MPAA, ASCAP and others, have joined with the RIAA to warn of the horrors that await if .music, .movies and .games are allowed without special anti-piracy features.

In a position statement, “New gTLDs Targeting Creative Sectors: Enhanced Safeguards”, the groups say that such gTLDs are “fraught with serious risks” and should be controlled more rigorously than other gTLDs.

“If new gTLDs targeted to these sectors – e.g., .music, .movies, .games – are launched without adequate safeguards, they could become havens for continued and increased criminal and illegal activity,” the statement says.

It goes on to make seven demands for regulations covering Whois accuracy, enforced anti-piracy policies, and private requests for domain name take-downs.

But, here's the thing: all that stuff already happens on other domains. What difference does it make if it happens on those new domains? It's not like domains are a totally scarce resource, and stopping piracy on one particular TLD will somehow prevent infringement. This just seems like a strange and pointless battle. It's not actually fighting infringement. It's fighting the possibility that a certain domain will be used for infringement -- even though preventing that won't stop any infringement at all, since it will continue on other websites. So why even spend time focusing on something so useless?

It says something about the mindset of these organizations that they can't comprehend that making a stand over this is completely meaningless. They just instinctively lash out at anything new.

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, tlds
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Why Hollywood's Six Strike Plan Should Be Investigated For Antitrust Violations

from the good-points dept

With there being renewed interest in the questionable deal between the RIAA/MPAA and the US's largest ISPs to set up a "six strikes" graduated response plan to cause trouble for those accused (not convicted) of file sharing, some are beginning to realize that the whole plan deserves serious antitrust scrutiny. After all, you have the representatives of two major industries getting together in a room to collude on a plan that will make internet access more expensive for users.

On top of that, since it's based on mere accusations (not convictions) -- and those accusations will come from a company with a terrible track record for accuracy -- you'll have to pay to challenge a strike and (most ridiculous of all) if you do challenge it, you are limited to just six defenses -- significantly less than are allowed under copyright law. That is, if the work is in the public domain, but published after 1923, you have no official defense under the plan. In other words, not only does the plan involve collusion among multiple big industries, but at the outset it assumes guilt before innocence, makes you pay to claim you're innocent, and won't even let you use basic defenses afforded to you under existing copyright law.

All of that seems of questionable legality. It also makes the White House's direct involvement in brokering this plan look even worse. And, once again, it makes us wonder why the real stakeholders, internet users, weren't given a seat at the table. If they were, perhaps this would have been avoided.

Of course, given the White House's involvement in brokering the deal, there doesn't seem much likelihood that the Attorney General will bother to scrutinize the agreement, since it would effectively be challenging his own boss.

That said, the article linked above suggesting that an antitrust inquiry seems necessary is written by Sean Flaim, and is based on his even more thorough research paper detailing why this program needs to be reviewed for antitrust violations. Unfortunately, the chances of that actually happening are still pretty slim.

Filed Under: antitrust, collusion, five strikes, graduated response, isps, six strikes
Companies: mpaa, riaa

When Entertainment Industry Numbers Are More Suited To Comedy Than Analysis

from the sorry-MPAA-but-nobody's-buying-it dept

We've often criticized the entertainment industry for their use of utterly bogus math to claim massive, completely unrealistic losses from piracy. As Mike once noted, "it would actually be kind of funny... if policy makers and the press didn't actually believe those numbers and pass bad legislation based on them."

That said, it can still be pretty damn funny, as this brilliant 5-minute TED talk by Rob Reid demonstrates:

If you didn't watch the video (you should), it's a sarcastic take on "©opyright Math™" in which Reid plays along with the industry's numbers in order to expose how ridiculous they are:

The movie folks also tell us that our economy loses over 370,000 jobs to content theft, which is quite a lot when you consider that back in '98 the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that the motion picture and video industries were employing 270,000 people. Other data has the music industry at about 45,000 people. And so the job losses that came with the internet and all that content theft have therefore left us with negative employment in our content industries. This is just one of the many mind-blowing statistics that copyright mathematicians have to deal with every day. And some people think that string theory is tough.

Reid doesn't do any actual debunking, because he doesn't need to—the numbers are so plainly false that just putting them in the spotlight is enough to get the audience laughing. It's a lot of fun, but it also underlines the bigger question: why do journalists and policy makers still blindly accept and repeat those same numbers? Hopefully, as more and more people recognize the industry's claims for the comedic fiction that they are, that will begin to change.

Filed Under: bad math, piracy, rob reid, ted talks
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want

from the 'scuse-me? dept

Sometimes I wonder if the execs who run the major copyright-related trade groups ever talk to actual people outside of their little bubbles. Because they say things that are so out of touch with reality that it's stunning. We already discussed the panel where the RIAA's Cary Sherman said that various ISPs will start acting as copyright cops by July, but some of the other statements on that panel are worth discussing as well. It was basically a panel of all the big copyright industry trade group associations -- the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA (software) and the AAP (book publishers).

What was most stunning is the pure hubris of the MPAA's Fritz Attaway, who flat out claimed that only they can make content that people want:

"Our industries do something that no one else can do," the Motion Picture Association of America's Fritz Attaway said at the Association of American Publishers annual meeting this morning. "We create content that people want to have."

Actually, no, tons of others create content that people want to have, and it's the real reason you're struggling so much today. You're not used to competing with those outside your little club.

The folks on the panel (with the exception of the BSA, who famously flip flopped its views on SOPA) brought out the usual crap about how SOPA was defeated via "disinformation":

"Right doesn't always prevail," Attaway said of SOPA and PIPA. "This time, it didn't, because our opponents were able to energize a grassroots response. In my view, and I think all of us would agree, [the protest against SOPA and PIPA was spread] primarily through disinformation and spinning their interest in a way that captured the attention of a number of consumers."

This is such a load of hogwash. The MPAA has been a master at disinformation campaigns throughout its history. It's why it's been able to continually ratchet up copyright law in its favor for decades. This is the same industry who declared that the VCR would kill it... and now whines that the home video market that wouldn't even exist if it had gotten its way is being decimated by the internet. Did some folks on the anti-SOPA side get some of the facts wrong? Yeah, but it wasn't a disinformation campaign. That's what the MPAA ran. And, the only reason there was some misinformation in the campaign against SOPA was because the MPAA went so far in its initial version of the bill (and make no mistake, the bill came from the MPAA), that people reacted to that. It's true that eventually some of the worst parts were removed and people who didn't realize that still referred to the original text. But it's not like they made things up wholesale. The MPAA, on the other hand, regularly made up claims out of thin air -- such as the supposed 2.2 million people this would effect. The industry employs less than 400,000, and many of them have nothing to do with the copyright/royalties side of the business.

The article by Laura Hazard Owen at PaidContent notes that these association bosses are now finally talking of "engagement" with those who disagreed with them on SOPA, but they still are only thinking about industries -- not internet users. They have no interest in actually talking to the riff-raff they look down upon, but still expect to give them money. Maybe that -- more than anything else -- is their problem.

Also, don't think they're done pushing for bad legislation. The RIAA's Cary Sherman noted that the plan was to push for legislation that was less likely to rally up the grassroots again:

The RIAA's Sherman hopes further copyright discussions will be more "rational" than the debate over SOPA and PIPA. "The digital tsunami we encountered with SOPA and PIPA—we're not going to get the same kind of engagement when we talk about statutory damages or open works," he said. "We'll have the opportunity for a more rational discussion."

You see, in Sherman's mind, any time anyone disagrees with the RIAA's stated position, that's no longer a "rational" discussion. But because "statutory damages" sound so boring, he's hopeful that they can pass even worse laws to make the already insane damages rates even more insane.

The whole thing shows, yet again, that these guys still have no idea what happened, and have no idea how to engage with the internet. It's sad to watch them flail around like this. If they'd only taken the time to actually use the internet and learn about it, perhaps they wouldn't always sound so clueless. But, of course, why would they use the internet? It's not like it even can produce any of the content they want...

Filed Under: content, fritz attaway, hubris
Companies: mpaa

Since The RIAA & MPAA Say That A Copy Is Just As Valuable As The Original, Send Them A Copy Of Money

from the proving-a-point dept

As a bunch of folks have been pointing out, in response to the Paul Graham essay on property that we were just discussing, a guy by the name of Jake Gold set up SendThemYourMoney.com, which is a site encouraging you to send "money" to the RIAA/MPAA. But... by "money" he means "copies" of money, since the RIAA/MPAA's whole argument is based on the idea that a copy is no different than the original:

The Problem

The MPAA & RIAA claim that the internet is stealing billions of dollars worth of their property by sharing copies of files. They're willing to destroy the internet with things like SOPA & PIPA in an attempt to collect that money.

The Solution

Let's just pay them the money! They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies to be just as valuable as the original. That makes it a lot easier to pay them back in two ways: a. We can email them scanned images of dollar bills instead of bulky paper and b. We don't have to worry about the hassle of shipping huge quantities of cash.

Further instructions are on the site, including a copy of a dollar bill which I've also copied here (theft!).



Of course, there's a concern. We also hear from folks at the RIAA/MPAA and their supporters all the time about how all this copying "devalues" the content. So I'm a bit worried that Jake's little plan here is going to totally devalue US currency and drive the world into a massive recession. Clearly, that's the only possible result of this kind of plan (if we're using RIAA/MPAA logic).

Filed Under: copies, money
Companies: mpaa, riaa

MPAA's Argument Against Hotfile Assumes Any Popular Content Online Must Be Infringing

from the and-for-this-they-want-summary-judgment? dept

When the MPAA filed its initial lawsuit against Hotfile, we noted that we were surprised at just how weak the argument was. Honestly, we thought that for all the talk of how evil Hotfile was, they would have a stronger argument. As expected, the MPAA has now filed for summary judgment in the case (standard behavior at this stage in a case like this). What's interesting is how much the motion for summary judgement appears to match the US government's indictment against Megaupload, including the questionable interpretation of perfectly reasonable behavior. Basically, the MPAA seems to think that the only possible interpretation of certain facts is that Hotfile was heavily encouraging copyright infringement. While there are some points that may cause trouble for Hotfile (its failure to set up a DMCA agent is a big one), many of the claims are ridiculous and seem to exist in bizarro world.

The more you read, the more you shake your head. The MPAA's circular arguments can basically be summarized as "We shall prove that this tool is illegal. Exhibit A: People use this illegal tool." Very large segments of the motion are basically this tautology over and over again. "Oh my goodness, this is illegal, and our proof is that it's designed so people use it!"

For example, the motion focuses on Hotfile's affiliate program for uploaders, which is quite similar to Megaupload's. However, the MPAA interprets this in a bizarre way suggesting that it was designed to encourage infringement. Why? Because it was designed to encourage usage. Really. The affiliate program pays people more if more of their content is downloaded. According to the MPAA that alone is evidence of encouraging infringement. That seems crazy. As we pointed out, plenty of artists used such services themselves to distribute their own works free to consumers, while still getting paid for it at the same time. This is a business model that cuts out the legacy gatekeepers... but does that make it against the law? In the eyes of the MPAA, absolutely.

Hotfile’s Affiliate program affirmatively discourages users from uploading files that are not downloaded frequently, because those files consume Hotfile resources without generating premium subscriptions. SUF 16(a)(iv)-(vi); e.g., Yeh Ex. 61 at 13 (“some webmaster just . . . upload LOTS of gigabytes, but don’t promote their files. So these kind of webmasters use our server resources, upload resources, bandwidth, diskspace and at final they make our service to work slow”). Hotfile discourages unpopular files through a “ranking” system (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Copper), which governs how much Affiliates are paid. SUF 16(a)(iv). Hotfile assigns “rank” based in part on an Affiliate’s ratio of uploaded files to downloaded files....

Hotfile also uses its Affiliate program to encourage Affiliates to upload large files – because “free” users frustrated with downloading large files at slow download speeds are more likely to upgrade to premium accounts to get faster download speeds

Notice the implicit assumption here: encouraging people to post content that people want and is large must mean it's infringing. But that's a logical leap that the MPAA makes without anything to back it up. There is nothing that says a large popular file must automatically be infringing. Why would the MPAA even make such an argument?

Also, just like the Megaupload indictment, they use the lack of a search engine to suggest something damning.

Because Hotfile avoids having a search function, Hotfile depends on link sites to host, organize and promote download links to content stored on Hotfile. Hotfile’s Affiliate program encourages the development of pirate link sites that do nothing other than promote download links.

This is especially ridiculous because in earlier cases the entertainment industry has argued exactly the opposite: that having a search feature means that these file sharing services were inducing and encouraging infringement by not just being neutral content hosts. The obvious thing to do to remain in compliance with the law, then, is not to have a search engine. Yet, now, they're claiming that not having a search engine is evidence of trying to encourage infringement. So which is it? Is having a search engine illegal or is not having a search engine illegal?

Basically, the MPAA doesn't care. To them, either is illegal because they just can't handle that they're losing their position as a gatekeeper.

Similar to the Megaupload indictment, this motion assumes that encouraging the uploading of popular files and the deletion of unpopular files is proof positive of infringement -- but there are perfectly legitimate reasons for those features. It's fairly amazing to watch the MPAA interpret perfectly reasonable things like deleting files no longer being downloaded -- which plenty of legitimate file transfer services do -- as evidence of lawbreaking.

The MPAA then keeps pretending that if Hotfile isn't used for "personal storage", it must be used for infringement. But that's ridiculous. It's a service for distributing files -- nothing says those files are automatically infringing. That's the logical leap that the MPAA makes multiple times throughout the document.

Hotfile’s chiding of users on public forums puts to rest any suggestion that Hotfile based its business on personal storage: “To pay you just to upload? Why should we pay you then? … Why should we upload files that nobody wants to download? You may think your files are interest[ing] and most probably they are, but we must convince downloaders and convert them to premium users.”

I read this and I don't see the nefariousness. Nowhere do they encourage infringement. They encourage popular files. I know the MPAA would rather not believe it, but there are lots of content creators who no longer go through the gatekeepers, and they produce all sorts of popular content -- some of whom use services like Hotfile and Megaupload to profit from doing so. Why does the MPAA assume that encouraging legitimate activity is proof of contributory infringement?

Similarly, the MPAA jumps a over a clear logic gap by insisting that Hotfile support staff simply "knew" of infringement, because some people asked them how to download files that, according to the MPAA, were infringing. But from the examples given, it certainly sounds like the questions had little to do with the content, but merely the functionality of how you download. There's no indication there that Hotfile's support staff could have or should have known the content is infringing. Amazingly, the MPAA's "we're the center of the universe" attitude seems to assume that naturally anyone would recognize the name of some of its bad movies and immediately, magically know that it's infringing. But, based on what? That's not explained.

The MPAA's "smoking gun" of sorts is the fact that a study suggested a large percentage of downloads on the site were infringing, but I don't see how that, alone, is illegal. When the MPAA sued to kill the VCR, a large percentage of VCR usage was considered "infringing." But the market evolved. A large percentage alone isn't proof of anything, but the MPAA has to throw it out there.

Later, the MPAA goes so far as to pretend a part of the law that doesn't exist. They point out that Hotfile "failed to consider" filtering technology. I can see how that's frustrating to the MPAA, but the law here is pretty clear that there is no proactive duty to filter. So why would the MPAA even bring this up as a point?

There are redactions in the motion and perhaps the MPAA has some magic evidence -- but it's troubling that so many of these claims seem to have little connection to reality.

Also troubling, the motion tries to pin liability on the site's main developer because he programmed the software. That seems pretty crazy. Just because you make a tool, it shouldn't make you liable for how others misuse it.

The entire point of the motion (and the lawsuit) seems to be to prove that (1) Hotfile encourages users to use the site and (2) many users use it to infringe. For them to have a case they need to prove that Hotfile actively encourages infringement, but they can't actually do that, so they just keep trying to prove that Hotfile encourages usage (what site doesn't?!?) and then, entirely separately, that many users infringe... and completely and totally leave out the part where part (1) is connected to part (2). They just keep repeating part (1) and part (2) and saying See?!?!? See?!?!? as if there's a connection there... but which they fail to actually make. It's amazingly lacking in any direct connection.

In the end, one other thing strikes me about all of this. If the MPAA believes that it has such a slam dunk case here... why did it never sue Megaupload in federal court? Yes, Megaupload is based outside the US... but it has been sued in the US before and took part in the case. So why did the MPAA never actually sue Megaupload? If it believes this filing against Hotfile is such a slam dunk, surely we'd have heard about a similar case against Megaupload... and some details of how that effort was stifled. But that's not what's happened at all.

Filed Under: copyright, cyberlockers, infringement
Companies: hotfile, mpaa