Report Shows MPAA 'Experts' Seriously Misrepresented The Uses Of Hotfile

from the substantial-non-infringing-uses dept

We've been following the surprisingly weak case that the MPAA filed against Hotfile for some time -- and, in some ways it's become even more important lately as a sort of "civil analog" to the criminal case against Megaupload. Hotfile and Megaupload have many similarities, and the arguments against both seem to make the same highly questionable assumptions -- taking perfectly legitimate actions and insisting that they must have been done for nefarious purposes. For example, in both cases, the fact that the companies offered "affiliate programs" that allowed users to make some revenue on frequently downloaded works was used as evidence that they were inducing infringement. But what the facts are showing is that this was quite often used to create legitimate and lucrative new business models for creators themselves. When Megaupload was taken down, for example, hip hop superstar Busta Rhymes argued vociferously that it was a fantastic way to make money -- with much, much better terms than major labels. That's because he (and lots of other artists) could release their own content through these platforms, allow consumers to get them for free, and get a large cut of the ad and subscription revenue.

It appears that this was also a popular use on Hotfile. TorrentFreak obtained a filing from copyright expert and law professor James Boyle, in which he points out that open source developers were using Hotfile's affiliate program as a business model, and, in fact that open source downloads were incredibly popular on the platform, very likely representing one-third of the top 100 downloads, adding up to millions of downloads.

The standard for infringement under the Betamax ruling is supposed to be if there are substantial non-infringing uses of the technology, and that certainly appears to be the case here.

Boyle also points out other ridiculous problems with Hollywood's "expert" report trying to claim that Hotfile was almost always used for infringement. For example, he notes that the report appears to have purposely excluded approximately 60% of the files on Hotfile. Hollywood's experts ignored files that were never downloaded or only downloaded once. Yet, as Boyle points out, the point of a cyberlocker is to store files -- and many people likely put files up so that they could be stored in case they were ever needed. Thus ignoring the 60% of files that were never downloaded or only downloaded once, excludes the fact that many of those may have been for perfectly reasonable and legitimate purposes of backup, storage or place/time-shifting. Basically, it looks like the MPAA's "experts" ignored anything that was inconvenient.

And it gets worse. The so-called "experts" that the MPAA found seemed to classify works as "highly likely infringing" despite there being significant evidence that they were perfectly legitimate works to be shared. Perhaps the most egregious example was a copy of a Russian book on embroidery published in 1871. No matter how you look at it, a book published in 1871 is in the public domain. But the MPAA's expert listed it as highly likely infringing. Then, when called out on that, the expert said that maybe there were new works in the book and would only downgrade his classification to "unknowable" rather than admitting it was public domain.
Mr. Zebrak’s classification here was inexplicable tome in my rebuttal report and remains so now. He argues that there could be copyrightable selection and arrangement in the illustrations of this work, even though both the original work and the illustrations are clearly in the public domain. I dealt with and dismissed this possibility in my rebuttal report – indeed the site to which he cites in his original argument for infringing status explicitly identifies this exact book, in unchanged order and arrangement, as being published in 1871 in St. Petersburg. This book is at the most conservative possible classification,“highly likely in the public domain.” Mr. Zebrak will not concede even this, though he does at least change his classification to “Unknowable.” Again, I think the refusal to admit evenoverwhelming evidence like this indicates a predisposition to find infringement that is worryingly strong – and that predisposition appears to be a general one, which therefore has significance far beyond the files I was able to examine in the time available to me.
Similarly troubling, the MPAA's experts took a freely distributable podcast, and insisted that, too, was "highly likely infringing." Podcasts are usually distributed for free, and since bandwidth costs are expensive, many podcast creators love using cyberlockers like Hotfile or Megaupload as a free storage and distribution platform. But the MPAA's "expert" insists that it's highly likely infringing. And it gets worse: even after the creator of the podcast said he was happy with its free redistribution, the MPAA's expert used iTunes terms of service to argue that it was still infringing. Except iTunes terms of service have nothing to do with the podcast:
Photography 101 Podcast: This podcast is an example, again, of the same theme .As I pointed out in my rebuttal report, the podcast is in fact offered for free download online and its author confirms that he does not object to its redistribution. Mr. Zebrak – somewhat puzzlingly – introduces the iTunes terms of service into the picture, apparently imagining that iTunes has the ability to affect the copyright status of a work in which it holds no copyright. It does not. Mr. Wittenburg holds the copyright in his podcasts. He allows people to download them freely and to repost them and says so explicitly in his affidavit. There is no evidence that the version of the podcast posted on Hotfile even came from iTunes. Mr. Wittenburg refers to the podcasts being available in multiple locations online. Even if it did, the iTunes terms of service are a red herring. I may give a lecture which I record and post online, posting it also on iTunes. I hold the copyright and I may choose to allow posting and reposting as I wish. Copyright law gives iTunes no rights over the program and no rights to circumscribe what I allow with my own podcast – they have no copyright to infringe – and thus the claim that the file is "highly likely infringing" cannot be supported on this basis.
Reports like this raise significant concerns about the claims against Hotfile (and similar sites).


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Gasp. I'm shocked. I'm astounded.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Glen, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 11:40am

    A lie by any other name is still...

    a lie. Seriously. Is it to hard to say they lied? Is our system that messed up.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 11:55am

      Re: A lie by any other name is still...

      IT's not that the system is fucked up, it's that you have to pay to say that it's fucked-up, or you get fined for saying so. Either way, you pay the MAFIAA.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

      Re: A lie by any other name is still...

      I am getting so fed up with this krap I keep reading I need to do something about it.I live in Maine and would like to get a Maine Pirate Party going.It is time to motivate the Youth and get this Anti-Establishment Movement going.I am Jordan the lead singer and founder of Maine's oldest punk band, "Big Meat Hammer".
      Democrats & Republicans are going to keep selling us out over and over.

      http://wh.gov/U19
      Sign my Petition and help stop CISPA
      Let us all try to stop this Atrocious intrusion of our Privacy and yet another attempt to Censor The Internet !!
      Please tell as many as you can and call Washington and your Reps.
      Jordan Maine's Oldest Punk Warned you SOPA/PIPA Would be back.
      Now we must work to try and stop this latest assault on our Freedom and the Freedom of The Internet !!!
      Corporations Are Not People

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Squig (profile), Apr 19th, 2012 @ 6:41am

        Re: Re: A lie by any other name is still...

        You should reach out to Pirates in Massachusetts, maybe they can help you. For infrastructure also the PPS of most other countries are happy to help!

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 11:46am

    You will see their bullshit on this soon enough. It will be badly put, and not make sense, but they will do it anyways.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Jamie, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 11:51am

    I classify Mr. Zebrak as "highly likely a shameless shill."

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 11:58am

    No true pirate site like Hotfile would have legitimate files stored on its servers, therefore, all of Hotfile's files are clearly infringing and there's simply no need to check the actual files to see if they are indeed infringing. Pirates sites are full of pirate-y badness pirate pirate piracy theft stealing stolen scumbag broadbrush freetard... What were we talking about again?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    "Hollywood's experts ignored files that were never downloaded or only downloaded once. Yet, as Boyle points out, the point of a cyberlocker is to store files -- and many people likely put files up so that they could be stored in case they were ever needed. Thus ignoring the 60% of files that were never downloaded or only downloaded once, excludes the fact that many of those may have been for perfectly reasonable and legitimate purposes of backup, storage or place/time-shifting. Basically, it looks like the MPAA's "experts" ignored anything that was inconvenient. "

    No, this is a nice way to try to spin reality. On sites like Megaupload, where 90% of the members were ONLY downloading, the number of downloads on a file is very important to show actual site activity, and to show what the site is used for.

    Single use files may be storage, or may be nothing other than someone passing something to a friend one time, without intent to share beyond that.

    You might have done better to point that the most popular hotfile item was ireb:

    http://torrentfreak.com/hotfiles-most-donwloaded-files-are-open-source-software-120411/

    However, even this report clearly shows slant, because they listed the top couple, but then didn't go on to show say the top 100 files. That would have been a different story.

    The question is what Hotfile was being used for by a majority of it's users, and single use files just don't make up the majority of the activity. Nice try Mike, another set of cherry picked facts fall flat.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:37pm

      Re:

      "The question is what Hotfile was being used for by a majority of it's users"

      Wrong, the legal question is if there are significant non-infringing uses.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:09pm

        Re: Re:

        "Wrong, the legal question is if there are significant non-infringing uses."

        If very few of the users are actually uploading files at all, what is the significant use?

        With many files with no accesses at all, could they be nothing more than decoy files? How are they broken down? Are they files within someone's account never accessed, while the other file (dvd rip) has been downloaded thousands of times?

        What was the average user doing with hotfile? Downloading, not uploading. That says it all right there.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          heyidiot (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So:

          60% of the content was never downloaded or only downloaded once. But, you say, 90% of users did nothing but download infringing content.

          Therefore those remaining 10% of users were responsible for uploading 60% of the data?

          I'm just trying to understand your theory here...

           

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

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What was the average user doing with hotfile? Downloading, not uploading. That says it all right there.


          What does it say? I'm seriously asking, because I don't see how upload/download ratio says anything whatsoever about copyright violations.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You do know that it's possible to download stuff that was legally distributed right?

          How is it that only uploading legal files is significant, but downloading those same files would not be?

          Or are you claiming that only products that can legally be aquired be paying for them are of good quality? If so I will gladly prove you wrong.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 9:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And once downloading is illegal, then you'll have a point. Just saying that most people download does not say what they are downloading, or the legality of the material being downloaded.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          indieThing, Apr 16th, 2012 @ 3:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Please, do tell what that says.

          As far as I'm aware downloading a file isn't illegal. Of course some of those downloads may have been infringing, but you haven't given any proof of what percentage were infringing and which weren't.

          Without those, you're just talking out of you're arse.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Machin Shin (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:38pm

      Re:

      Yes those 60% of files might not be majority of the sites traffic but it is kind of hard to say that over half the files on the site don't mean at least something.

      Really though all this is unimportant without all the data. I have come to greatly distrust ANY AND ALL "studies". Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that you can play with the numbers to make them say whatever you want. The only way I trust any of these "studies" is if I have access to ALL the data.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:07pm

        Re: Re:

        "Yes those 60% of files might not be majority of the sites traffic but it is kind of hard to say that over half the files on the site don't mean at least something. "

        You don't have to think hard to realize why.

        If 60% of the files are accessed either once or never, then 40% of the files are getting the vast majority of the traffic. Why is this hard to understand?

        In statistical terms, the 60% of files represent a very small percentage of the total user experience with hotfile. The site after all is in the top 400 sites in the world. If 60% of that traffic was uploading single use files, they would need a huge amount of storage. It's just not the case, based on everything we can see about file locker sites.

        You can enjoy ALL the data - what Mike is misrepresenting here is that the number of files on a system (many never accessed at all) isn't an indication of what users were doing. It's what the users were actually doing that counts, and in that regard, the MPAA report is spot on and exact.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You can enjoy ALL the data - what Mike is misrepresenting here is that the number of files on a system (many never accessed at all) isn't an indication of what users were doing.

          Sorry, but Mike addressed that very thing. The fact that most files were never accessed is indeed a very good indication of what users were doing: using the site as a perfectly legal file locker for backups and storage.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That sounds illegal. I hope everybody goes to jail.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So THAT is the new legal standard. The government just has to prove that something has to sound illegal for people to go to jail. Great. I feel much safer now. Thank you.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                That One Guy (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 8:38pm

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

                Prove? Prove? The government doesn't have to Prove anything, they just have to say something seems like it's illegal.

                 

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So if we hypothetically put those same statistics to the MegaUpload case and let's assume that 80% of the 40% was infringement. Let's say the other 20% was legitimate distribution by artists like Busta Rhymes and open source software distribution mentioned earlier. That means a site where 32% of the data that was infringing would justify the other 68% losing their data in a government take down that had no due process?

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Eponymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 2:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          These uploaders ARE users, so you can't just discount their legal activity ("user experience") to give precedent to the downloaders (which may be legal and/or illegal activity) as the entirety of your case. You make claims of Mike misrepresenting, yet you cherry-pick which users to actually call users here and which "user experience" to build your argument around. Hypocrite much?

          You think you make a sound argument, but your bias is highly visible in the way you come to your conclusion. "The number of files on a system (many never accessed at all) isn't an indication of what users were doing." If that isn't an indication of what the users were doing then what is it then? To me, and I'm sure others as well, it is an indication that many users were using the platform to backup files for future use if needed and you can't so conveniently dismiss this activity just because it doesn't fit your argument.

          "It's what the users were actually doing that counts," so what you are saying is there are users you can ignore while other users, of course those which are of the infringing kind, which should be the sole focus right? So like the MPAA, which thinks some data can be ignored while other data is to be highlighted, you also share in their same substandard rigor in making a case which you confirm with "and in that regard, the MPAA report is spot on and exact."

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 8:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You miss the point. The number of uploaders generally is small, so the experience of the MAJORITY of the users is something else.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Ninja (profile), Apr 16th, 2012 @ 6:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Please provide numbers. If I'm uploading infringing content for distribution why would I keep the link for myself? You keep vomiting assumptions without any evidence.

              I'll crush your evidence right here right now. Recently I participated in the production of a 400 page report where a crew of 15 ppl was involved along with 2 others that were doing the layout and editing of the documents (for printing purposes). We were working with high quality graphical stuff such as maps and satellite photos so e-mails were a no-go. We turned to Rapidshare, a clone of Hotfile (and vice-versa) to share the files. We signed up a premium account where we'd upload the material that needed to be shared among the crew and the editors. We uploaded over 20Gb of material and downloaded at least 200Gb (multiple downloads of the same files). None of the activity was infringing.

              I'll go further and tell you about the experience of my friend with Megaupload. He used MU as some sort of USB stick, he'd simply fire up his mobile browser and download the content whenever he needed. That included mp3 he owned the physical media (and obviously said infringing music too) but he was the only uploader and the only downloader. He also used it for other activities such as downloading open source software and some Japanese content there's no way to watch other than getting fansubbed material (if memory serves he was following a few j-dramas and live actions last time I asked).

              While I can't provide evidence for what I'm telling (the premium account we used has been deleted after we were done) it is a personal experience that seems to disagree with you and the MAFIAA. So please, stop pulling assumptions and statistics from your ass and start providing evidence.

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Eponymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 2:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think your logical fallacy is a variation on the 'No True Scotsman'. In your case: no true user was using Hotfile for legitimate purposes!

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:37pm

        Re: Re:

        Or simply make them up as the MPAA and RIAA are fond of doing.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:44pm

      Re:

      The question is what Hotfile was being used for by a majority of it's users,....

      That question is immaterial. The standard is that the tool only need to be capable of substantial non-infringing uses. Clearly, both Mega and Hotfile ARE capable of non-infringing uses and were actually used as such. Moreover, some of those uses actually benefited the right's holders.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 2:27am

      Re:

      "The question is what Hotfile was being used for by a majority of it's users, and single use files just don't make up the majority of the activity.":

      Yes they do. 60% of it in fact.

      Oh, you're going to cherry pick one side of the data (downloads) and ignore half the purpose of the site (uploads). Typical bullshit...

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Drew (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:12pm

    According to MPAA Experts 972% of the links on google are infringing. Maybe they're counting alternate realities"It has to be that!". I'm sure if they added enough of them together they can get to their absurd figures.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Chris Brand (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Useful

    It's quite an indictment of the state of copyright law today that a copyright expert can claim that the copyright status of a particular work is "unknowable" - not "unknown", mind you, but "unknowable". So he believes that it is not possible to determine whether this work is copyrighted or not (let alone who owns any copyright that it may be subject to).

    One of the fundamentals of any law is certainty - it should never be "unknowable" whether an act is legal or not.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

      Re: Useful

      Please refer to the secret interpretations of the PATRIOT Act and National Security letters.

      Unknowable legality is an American institution...

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    This is bad for open source

    These sites usually offer pretty crappy free service. If you want to be able to download something, you're sort of pushed and pulled into paying.

    The open source projects who use this are essentially setting up sleezy barricades just so they can make a tiny bit of revenue. It's just not a good practice for managing an open source project. If you're going to be open, you should share your content openly and not try a backdoor way to make money.

    They're purposely degrading the user experience just to help the bottom line, pretty much the same thing as DRM. Ugh.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Atkray (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:27pm

      Re: This is bad for open source

      I disagree, my experience has been that people sharing open source files quite often use torrents and lockers because some people have aversions to one or the other.

      You seem to not care for locker sites and the headaches they sometimes have (especially if you need to download something in pieces) but I also know people who just flat out won't use torrents.

      Making it as convenient as possible for as many people as possible is the objective.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:46pm

      Silly boy

      I subscribe fully to the free software/open source movement, but I don't see why you think "open source" means you're entitled to get software at no cost and with good service, just that you should have control over it once you do have it.

      Remember: free as in freedom, not free as in "free beer here!"

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:16pm

    The MPAA and RIAA would like to paint the picture that all files shared or stored are infringing. They have been successful with congress.

    So why doesn't news to the contrary get any headlines? This is exactly what the public needs to know about.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:22pm

      Re:

      "The MPAA and RIAA would like to paint the picture that all files shared or stored are infringing. They have been successful with congress. "

      No they wouldn't. That is a crock of shit, and you know it.

      What they are trying to show (and appears to be the case in both Hotfile and Megaupload) is that the vast majority of the active files are pirate material. The vast majority of users are there to download, not upload, and so on.

      The 60% figure on single use and no-download use of files is nice, but what portion of the total activity on hotfile does it account for? I would guess less than 1%.

      It's a cherry picking of numbers and a framing of the discussion in a manner that is misleading. What did the majority of hotfile users do with the service? They downloaded files. The 60% single use files were clearly not what they were there for.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:32pm

        Re: Re:

        How can say you know what "the majority of hotfile users" do? That's BS speculation just like most of the stuff MPAA and RIAA exposes.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Based on the Megaupload case, it was revealed already that 90% of the members were download only. There is no reason to expect other file locker sites to have a different pattern, especially considering that hotfile and mega were used in similar manners online.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Downloading doesn't always equate to infringement.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'd estimate that about 99.9% of iTunes users are download-only. Is iTunes a pirate service?

             

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

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
               
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Umm, can you upload to Itunes?

              No. Don't be a fucking tard Marcus. I know it's hard, but KEEP TRYING. One day you will get your diaper off and be able to walk around without shitting yourself.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:14pm

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

                Umm, can you upload to Itunes?

                Um yes - by setting up a merchant account and selling/giving away your music there. Where do you think all the music comes from? Apple's garage?

                iTunes is a popular media service, where the VAST majority of people only download, compared to a tiny minority who supply everything. So by your Megaupload reasoning, it's probably infringing.

                Sorry if your own logic produces outcomes you don't like, but that's not my problem.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Liz (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

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

                If you have an account where you can sell your songs on iTunes, then yes. You can indeed upload to that service.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 2:57am

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

                "Umm, can you upload to Itunes?"

                Yes, either personally or through a service like Tunecore.

                90% of your comment is whining like a 2 year old who just discovered how to swear, and you still can't get your facts right...

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                [citation needed or GTFO], Apr 14th, 2012 @ 10:48am

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

                Umm, can you upload to Itunes?

                To DOWNload something, one must have UPloaded first. You can't download what's not there.

                 

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Assuming that the other cyber lockers follow this pattern is like assuming that 90% of the members downloading were downloading legitimate content.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Citation please.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 3:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              He won't give one, nor will he admit that the ratio of download vs. paid upload members has sod all to do with whether the content was infringing, nor imply the ratio of legal vs. infringing content. We've been down this path many times.

               

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

          •  
            identicon
            Eponymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 2:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            This is sound logic right here to build a case on: because one site was 90% download one should just assume that holds for all others. Therefore if one file was used for infringement then all files will be infringing, and if one locker site was used for infringement then we can deduce that all locker sites are used as such without having to actually investigate and substantiate these claims. You're a regular Sherlock Holmes...

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re:

        They wouldn't? Then why did they do that verbatim with their own report on Hotfile?

        Majority is irrelevant. It's a question of significant non-infringing use. If the most popular downloads are non-infringing that comes pretty close to being enough full stop to show that there is significant non-infringing use.

        The 60% figure on single user means 60% of the uploading was for storage purposes i.e. a majority of the uploads were done for non-infringing purposes. Continue making the bullshit claim that download counts somehow weight the other 40% to make up a majority though. It's not obviously just desperate 'cherry picking of numbers,' to borrow a phrase.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

        Re: Re:

        They wouldn't? Then why did they do that verbatim with their own report on Hotfile?

        Majority is irrelevant. It's a question of significant non-infringing use. If the most popular downloads are non-infringing that comes pretty close to being enough full stop to show that there is significant non-infringing use.

        The 60% figure on single user means 60% of the uploading was for storage purposes i.e. a majority of the uploads were done for non-infringing purposes. Continue making the bullshit claim that download counts somehow weight the other 40% to make up a majority though. It's not obviously just desperate 'cherry picking of numbers,' to borrow a phrase.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Another AC, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re:

        ... but what portion of the total activity on hotfile does it account for? I would guess less than 1%

        Translation:

        Mike is a pirate for cherry-picking numbers to skew the debate. I however am an expert because I make unverified guesses to skew the debate.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Don't be daft. If 60% of the file are either accessed once or never, there represent a very small amount of traffic and requests. 1% is GENEROUS.

          It's a guess based on the available evidence, and a bit of simple logic - you should try it sometime.


          (oh, and it's okay for Mike to suppose and have an opinion, but the rest of us just need to shut the fuck up? How nice!)

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Another AC, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually it's a guess based on your opinion, no evidence whatsoever supports it that I can see or that you've offered.

            I never said to shut up, of course you have a right to your opinion as much as the rest of us, I didn't say you couldn't. You probably guessed that was my meaning, but you were wrong.

            What I did say is that you are trying to explain away what you think is flawed reasoning with equally flawed reasoning. Pot, meet kettle.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              As I said before...

              "That's BS speculation just like most of the stuff MPAA and RIAA exposes."

               

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

          •  
            icon
            Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Apr 15th, 2012 @ 11:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Don't be daft. If 60% of the file are either accessed once or never, there represent a very small amount of traffic and requests. 1% is GENEROUS.
            And yet again (and again and again and....) you ignore the purpose of a cyberlocker and cherry pick your favorite figures.

            Traffic is not usage. Putting a file there and leaving it there until you need it is just as much "usage" as downloading one already there. So the best that can be said for the "facts" is that if 60% of the files aren't regularly downloaded then they are significantly less likely to be infringing. These files, whether they have "traffic" statistics or not are very much part of the "usage" of the site no matter how loud you scream and rant.

            I also note that you seem to be attempting to imply that a "download only" account is de-facto infringing when a/ there are plenty of provable legitimate downloads and b/ it seems as per the article that some portion of the download traffic labelled as infringing is, in fact, not infringing at all and is therefore also legitimate.

            So that leads me to 2 conclusions; 1/ It seems obvious there are significant non-infringing usages of the site.
            and
            2/ You, apparantly much like Mr. Zebrak, appear to have a significant resemblance to someone full of the brown sticky odiferous stuff.

             

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

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:08pm

        Re: Re:

        "The MPAA and RIAA would like to paint the picture that all files shared or stored are infringing. They have been successful with congress. "

        No they wouldn't. That is a crock of shit, and you know it.


        Well, I don't know it. Everything they've said and done has indicated that they are trying hard to pain all sharing as piracy. Why shouldn't I believe my own eyes and ears?

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:59pm

        Re: Re:


        What they are trying to show (and appears to be the case in both Hotfile and Megaupload) is that the vast majority of the active files are pirate material. The vast majority of users are there to download, not upload, and so on.


        Even if true this would not meet the legal test which is a positive test for "substantial legal use". IF there is substantial legal use then the amount, even the proportion, of infringing use is irrelevant.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 5:59pm

        Re: Re:

        >"The MPAA and RIAA would like to paint the picture that all files shared or stored are infringing. They have been successful with congress. "

        No they wouldn't. That is a crock of shit, and you know it.

        You're joking, right? If the MPAA hadn't been successful with Congress how the fuck do you explain the Megaupload raid?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 9:37pm

        Re: Re:

        You're a crock of shit. By your reasoning only people who produce whatever type of entertainment should have access to it? What sort of crazy juice have you been drinking? Damned if I'm only going to make my music available to other musicians.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), Apr 16th, 2012 @ 4:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Everyone should have access, but the 99% who don't produce should pay through the nose for inferior quality, DRM-riddled, spyware-laden trash.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Eponymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 2:47am

        Re: Re:

        "I would guess less than 1%." You guess? How can you have a credible argument about numbers and stats where you guess? What is the data you are working with here? Do you know the amount of traffic and how it breaks down to uploaders and downloaders? Do you have any idea of what percent of the "active" files were infringing? Or were you guessing at all this too? Then you have the gall to accuse others of cherry picking numbers, but at least they were real percentages and not guesses! You sir are a fool.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 28th, 2013 @ 4:31pm

        Re: Re:

        ---- What did the majority of hotfile users do with the service? They downloaded files. The 60% single use files were clearly not what they were there for.--- [citation needed or you're just shilling / pulling information out of your ass]

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:27pm

      Re:

      The same reason SOPA/PIPA didn't get any coverage. The news conglomerates support them.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:23pm

    You are now all designated pirates, terrorists, and/or pedophiles.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:04pm

      Re:

      Well, pirates are all terrorists, obviously. Just don't confuse the last one with paediatrician: it can get people hurt.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Apr 16th, 2012 @ 4:40am

        Re: Re:

        It already did in the UK, courtesy of the News of the World. Funnily enough, the editor responsible was none other than the 'delightful' redhead of phone hacking...

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:55pm

    'the MPAA's "experts" ignored anything that was inconvenient'. wrong term there. shouldn't have been 'inconvenient', more like damning to the MPAA is nearer the mark! but then, when have any of the entertainment industries told the truth?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:59pm

    The place where I work uses file lockers all the time to transfer large pdf files to and from our clients that are too large to be sent in email.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:01pm

    So if the MPAA loses these cases, can they be sued for lost profits? That would be epic!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    DanZee (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:14pm

    If You Can't Fight Them, Join Them!

    The record companies and movie studios should have put their files on Hotfiles and MegaUpload and then they would have profited from the revenue those sites were generating instead of fighting them.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    bigpicture, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:02pm

    So you are finally getting it? That the old traditional "middle man" music recording and book publishing business model is seriously threatened. The actual content producers (musicians and authors) and their customers/fans are only a mouse click apart. No need for the heavily skimming Publisher and Recording Company middle man. Musicians and Authors have a new, and probably better marketing venue, and the non-value-added Publishers and Recording companies are on the way out when the rights to their current copyright locked up inventory runs out.

    Check the history of the Horse Carriages and the Automobile, and the Henry Ford "car in every driveway, at $100.00 each" mantra. The shake up and reaction scenario is not a lot different than what is happening here. But "some things never change, and some people never learn".

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Craig (profile), Apr 16th, 2012 @ 6:29am

    typical

    Its a case of only using the parts of law you like other parts we will just ignore or make up as we go along.....

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    hotfile premium, Jun 30th, 2012 @ 4:12pm

    hotfile premium

    hotfile premium satış

     

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


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