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

from the uh-ohs dept

The legal battle between cyberlocker Hotfile and the MPAA continues to heat up. After a judge severely undercut a key claim of the MPAA, the MPAA has been acting petulantly, refusing to hand over certain documents under discovery to Hotfile. The MPAA claims it would reveal their secret "anti-piracy" plans... but the real issue may be that Hotfile believes that Warner Bros. used Hotfile's takedown tool to remove content over which it had no copyright. That would be a no-no and would certainly make the case that much more interesting...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

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

    Troll attacking the source of the story or the typo in the headline in...3...2...1...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Jacob Cooper (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 1:35am

    Re:

    I wish... I only clicked into the article to read the comments about the typo. Maybe tomorrow there will be better ones.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 1:38am

    Re:

    Ugh. Typo bad. Fixed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 1:50am

    Re: Re:

    It's ok Mike, just remember that when life gives you melons, your keyboard is most likely dyslexic ;P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    That Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 1:51am

    But all your copyright is belongs to us.
    We are just helping our copyright brothers out.
    Laws do not apply to our scared copyrights!

    So what if we took down content we aren't even remotely sure is ours.
    So what if we took down content we didn't own.
    They are pirates and because they break the law, we need to break the law!

    This is different than the bogus DMCA takedowns?
    There is rarely if ever anything done when they abuse the laws they demand be put into place to protect them.
    Copyright is meant to be of benefit to the producers of content, but also to the public... I think we've forgotten that the people are supposed to get anything other than screwed out of these laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Jacob Cooper (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 1:53am

    Re: Re:

    For the record, the original headline said... "Hotfile Claims Warner Bros. Issued Takedowns On Continet It Had No Copyright Over"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 1:57am

    Re: Re:

    I almost didn't comment since that usually makes one look stupid after it was fixed, but I suspected a deluge of morons if I didn't!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 1:58am

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

    There is a simple answer to all this, only allow solicitors/attorneys for both sides to access the Discovery evidence under an 'in camera' system with any experts having to sign court sanctioned and court created Non-Disclosure Agreements.

    I sign these things all the time, it's not hard and if any information, be it Secrets or whatever that is ever leaked by myself can land me in contempt of court at the very least.

    This way no bias is shown to the evidence in any way, and nothing nefarious or otherwise can be construed by EITHER side. This is the best and most likely easiest equitable solution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 2:21am

    " But...But.. THINK OF THE MONEY WE'LL HAVE TO PAY!!!!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    FuzzyDuck, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 2:31am

    Re:

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

    - Pay lawmakers to push through laws.
    - Discredit lawmakers and other critics.
    - Lobby the US gov't to pressure other countries to pass similar laws.
    - Find ways to scare people from downloading.
    etc...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 2:58am

    Re: Re:

    I figure its more like:

    step 1. SUE
    step 2. repeat step one
    Step 3. profit???

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Of course they do., Jul 28th, 2011 @ 3:28am

    It's the same with YouTube.
    Why wouldn't they, there's no reprecussions for false takedown claims, and even if it's not their content - it's competing with their content.
    Win - Win for them, until we get serious reprecussions for filing false takedown notices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 3:30am

    Secret Plan: Lobbyist Judges

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

    RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 4:26am

    This is precisely why we need more laws that give people the ability to shut down entire domains without a warrant. It won't be abused. We promise!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 5:26am

    it would reveal their secret "anti-piracy" plans... held in a hermetically sealed iron clad save deep within their evil volcanic lair.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 5:50am

    Re:

    > We are just helping our copyright brothers out.

    And we'd be happy to collect any court imposed actual and punitive damage awards.

    We're all about being sure the artists get paid. Trust us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 6:59am

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

    hf: "They claimed copyright on something that is not theirs".
    lawyer: "Okay, so who owns the copyright on this stuff?"
    hf: "Oh, it's belongs to Sony:.
    lawyer: "Okay, so you have a license for it from Sony, right?"
    hf: "no, of course not!"
    laywer: "so why is it on your service if you know it isn't licensed to be there?"
    hf: "I would rather not answer that question, as it could be self-incriminating"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 7:09am

    Re:

    They would never have to testify on that issue. All they have to do is provide the documentation that shows the MPAA filed a take-down and then ask the MPAA for evidence they own the copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 7:29am

    Re: Re:

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

    We also don't have the full story here, the titles could be similar, it might be something that they have the rights for in certain jurisdictions, perhaps. We just don't know.

    What we do know is that there is plenty of stuff on hotfile without permission.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 7:35am

    I don't see how an anti-piracy plan "derives independent economic value from not being publicly known". I mean, we're all going to find out what it is soon enough. Unless of course the plan involves some illegal activity and therefore they would loose a bunch of money if people knew about it. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 7:36am

    Re: Re:

    Which would come in a brown envelope containg a dehydrated Hooker, 3 grams of cocaine and $10,000 worth of Jefferson.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

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

    You're right, we don't have all the facts, but if hotfile is smart about how they do this, they won't have to answer the admittedly embarrassing questions you mentioned above.

    Also, the whole "do you have a license?" question would be easy to handle: "Our upload process says you must be authorized to upload it and that you give us a license. So I suppose we do have a license unless someone fraudulently uploaded content they were not authorized to upload. But that's not our responsibility to detect."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 8:06am

    Re:

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

    hf: "They claimed copyright on file xxx.xxx but haven't provided evidence to support their claim."

    After that I can't come up with any other dialogue, that just kinda kills it dead there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 8:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

    Hiding behind the law and being willfully blind really isn't something that should be tolerated. The push to get them out of the "service provider" section seems to be based on that idea. Clearly, HotFile profits when people pay to download files, and clearly illicit files would be much more in demand. So therefore, a conclusion could be made that their business model would not work without wilfully ignoring copyright violations.

    I suspect we will find that either Warner or it's related companies do hold copyright for the most part, errors do happen, but I suspect that the courts won't get upset about good faith mistakes - everyone is human, it happens. It certainly doesn't excuse HotFile's business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 8:30am

    Re:

    I thought it was an underwater lair, oh wait that's just the record labels that are underwater or soon going to be ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

    Also, all that you have demonstrated is that they might make less money without illegal downloads. That does not mean they would not make enough money to stay profitable.

    And we are not talking about honest mistakes. If I think that your car is my car and I put my key in it, that is an honest mistake. If I simply assume that it is and call the cops when I see you driving away, that is being reckless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Alien Bard, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 9:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

    I know, I know, "Don't feed the trolls..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Alien Bard, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 9:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

    But in response to your post I would like to comment that Hotfile is actually the LEAST used service by pirates. The fact they are in business at all proves the fallacy in the idea that only pirates use such services.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 9:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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


    Here's looking at you, Beryl Howell.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 9:29am

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


    But did Hotfile agree to fix prices at $35 ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Alien Bard, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 9:32am

    Re:

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

    Why does that phrase seem so familiar? Oh, that's right, it's the same one we keep getting thrown at us when we try to protect our individual rights to privacy. Now we get to see how one of the anti-privacy advocates behaves when the situation is reversed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    BeeAitch (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Re:

    ...discussed only under the cone of silence...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

    Wait... Isn't this EXACTLY what the recording industry is doing? Especially when they try to get new laws enacted to try and fix a business problem?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 28th, 2011 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

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

    Um. No. They wouldn't. Because there is no burden for Hotfile to show who holds the copyright at all. Honestly, I know you claim you like to take the piss out of people who know more than you for shits and giggles, but at the very least you should learn the basics of what you're talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

    "errors do happen, but I suspect that the courts won't get upset about good faith mistakes - everyone is human, it happens."

    I believe the legal response to this defense would be, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

    Nice how some AC's have no problem 'assuming' that those being accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without any form of proof, but point out a company abusing the law and it's a 'good faith mistake'....

    Shill on...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 28th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    Re:

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

    Too bad these companies will never be tried on RICO charges, it would only be fitting to have them dismantled and shown as the abusive protection racket promoting mafia thugs they really are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 11:25am

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

    I hope people who assert spurious copyright ownership, especially over public domain material, experience the same repercussions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Damn Jews, Jul 30th, 2011 @ 9:01pm

    LOL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This