<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;cyberlocker&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:13:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Cyberlocker Blocked In Italy Hires Lawyer To Challenge The Block</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/02171022760/cyberlocker-blocked-italy-hires-lawyer-to-challenge-block.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/02171022760/cyberlocker-blocked-italy-hires-lawyer-to-challenge-block.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently, over in Italy, the latest overreaction to copyright infringement online resulted in police having the domains of <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/massive-bittorrent-and-cyberlocker-domain-crackdown-underway-130415/" target="_blank">27 sites blocked at the ISP level</a>.  We're always nervous about law enforcement actions that involve such a broad-based attack on an entire site, especially when the sites are not given the chance to be heard in an adversarial hearing first.  It appears now that at least one site, Rapidgator, <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/rapidgator-and-isps-appeal-domain-name-blockade-and-seizure-130419/" target="_blank">has hired a lawyer in Italy</a> to challenge the decision.  Of course, in the meantime, the site is still blocked, which can be deadly for a startup trying to grow a business.  Is it really that much to ask for a basic process in which a site is given the chance to respond to allegations <b>before</b> it's shut down entirely?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/02171022760/cyberlocker-blocked-italy-hires-lawyer-to-challenge-block.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/02171022760/cyberlocker-blocked-italy-hires-lawyer-to-challenge-block.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/02171022760/cyberlocker-blocked-italy-hires-lawyer-to-challenge-block.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>censor-first,-ask-questions-later</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130419/02171022760</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:39:31 PST</pubDate>
<title>Me.ga Domain Pulled Out From Under New Kim Dotcom Venture</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/01581820957/mega-domain-pulled-out-under-new-kim-dotcom-venture.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/01581820957/mega-domain-pulled-out-under-new-kim-dotcom-venture.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As we've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/10250720827/doj-hints-additional-charges-against-kim-dotcom-if-he-launches-megabox.shtml">noted</a>, we've been avoiding stories about whatever "new" service Kim Dotcom is launching, because it all sounds like hype and vaporware to us.  Until there's something real, it's all just rampant speculation, and it's a little silly how much adoration people have for an idea whose details have not been released at all.  However, we will cover <i>factual</i> information related to the effort, and as was widely reported by others, the plan had been to use the domain name Me.ga.  This had a few useful "features."  First, it plays on the "mega" prefix that is so closely associated with Dotcom's offerings.  Perhaps more importantly (at least, it's a key thing that many in the press covered), the .ga domain is not technically subject to control or seizure by the US (though, of course, SOPA/PIPA were intended to deal with just that kind of situation).
<br /><br />
However, even without SOPA/PIPA, there is still the power of diplomatic pressure, and it didn't take long for the Communications Minister of Gabon to <a href="http://phys.org/news/2012-11-gabon-megaupload-site.html" target="_blank">announce that the domain was being suspended</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"I have instructed my departments... to immediately suspend the site www.me.ga," announced Communication Minister Blaise Louembe, saying he wanted to "protect intellectual property rights" and "fight cyber crime effectively".
<br /><br />
"Gabon cannot serve as a platform or screen for committing acts aimed at violating copyrights, nor be used by unscrupulous people," the minister said.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, that seems pretty presumptuous on a number of levels.  Since the service has not been launched -- and the actual details have not been revealed -- it's a bit premature to declare that the site must somehow violate intellectual property rights or be useful for cybercrime.  And if government officials are stepping in to kill off cyberlockers based entirely on rumor and innuendo, will .ga block any other cyberlocker as well?  Considering how popular such services are -- including those run by well-established companies like Amazon, Google and Dropbox -- it makes you wonder how Gabon decides who gets to use a .ga domain.
<br /><br />
There may also be a separate issue at play here.    As some have <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/me-ga-hackers-were-real-pirates-well-sell-dotcoms-domain-to-universal-121107/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">noted</a>, the .ga top level domain is administered by Gabon Telecom, which just so happens to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi... the same company who owns the world's largest music label, Universal Music.  I'm sure that's just a coincidence.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/01581820957/mega-domain-pulled-out-under-new-kim-dotcom-venture.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/01581820957/mega-domain-pulled-out-under-new-kim-dotcom-venture.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/01581820957/mega-domain-pulled-out-under-new-kim-dotcom-venture.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-look-at-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121107/01581820957</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:07:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/11592315933/hotfile-responds-to-lawsuit-filed-studios-countersues-warner-bros-copyright-misuse.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/11592315933/hotfile-responds-to-lawsuit-filed-studios-countersues-warner-bros-copyright-misuse.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There was a bit of a fuss in the ongoing Hotfile vs. Hollywood lawsuit a few weeks ago when the judge made a minor ruling on discovery about what Hotfile had to hand over.  However, now that Hotfile has <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/hotfile-sues-warner-bros-for-copyright-fraud-and-abuse-110913/" target="_blank">officially responded to the complaint and added some counterclaims</a>, the lawsuit is finally starting to get interesting.  The MPAA/Hollywood studios' case took a big hit earlier this year, when the judge <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110711/10591815046/judge-drops-key-claim-mpaas-case-against-hotfile-cyberlocker-didnt-directly-infringe.shtml">dismissed</a> the claim of direct infringement by Hotfile.  Without that, the MPAA has a much tougher case to prove, since it no longer becomes a straight copyright infringement case, but becomes more focused on whether or not Hotfile is protected by the DMCA's safe harbors.  Where the counterclaims get interesting is that, as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110727/04222815278/hotfile-claims-warner-bros-issued-takedowns-content-it-had-no-copyright-over.shtml">alleged</a> earlier this year by Hotfile, one of the plaintiffs, Warner Bros., regularly abused its takedown tool to issue takedowns on content for which it did not hold the copyright.  As in the situation in which Viacom got into some trouble for issuing takedowns on content it had uploaded itself in the YouTube case, this may serve to undermine much of the studio's arguments.
<br /><br />
Most of the response from Hotfile seems focused on proving that it's protected by the DMCA's safe harbors, but there are a few other interesting tidbits, including this one:
<blockquote><i>
On information and belief, Plaintiffs have been
investigating Hotfile for over a year in which time they were aware of particular URLs of files
that they believed to be infringing and had decided to contend that Hotfile&rsquo;s content protection
policies were inadequate. Rather than diligently and promptly bringing suit, however, Plaintiffs
and their content protection agents delayed in seeking any remedy. Not only did Plaintiffs
inexplicably fail to bring suit or otherwise give Hotfile notice of their allegations during this
period, to the contrary, they repeatedly complimented Hotfile&rsquo;s content protection efforts,
offered for Hotfile to become a business affiliate, and refrained from using their Special
Rightsholder Accounts to takedown the files they believed were infringing. Plaintiffs thereby
perpetuated the very infringement they now allege in this case. Plaintiffs&rsquo; unreasonable delay
resulted in prejudice by causing Hotfile to leave up the files that are now alleged to infringe, inducing Hotfile to maintain the very content protection policies Plaintiffs now impugn, and
causing potentially helpful evidence to be lost....
</i></blockquote>
It also notes that due to the compliments from studios and the questions about business relationships, Hotfile "relied on these
representations believing that the Studios found Hotfile&rsquo;s content protection policies to be more
than adequate."  The specifics here seem to be that Warner Bros. asked for and received a specific tool made by Hotfile to make deletions easier, and then regularly thanked Hotfile for its actions taking down content.  Again, that looks bad for WB.
<br /><br />
Other than that, the part that's getting attention is the claim that Warner Bros. issued takedowns on content for which it did not hold the copyright.  That certainly looks bad for Warner Bros., and at the very least raises significant questions about how Hotfile could be expected to know who held which copyrights when even one of the plaintiffs appears not to know.
<blockquote><i>
Warner has acted
unscrupulously and dishonestly. Not only has Warner (along with four other major motion
picture studios) filed this unfounded and contrived litigation against Hotfile employing overly
aggressive tactics, Warner has made repeated, reckless and irresponsible misrepresentations to
Hotfile falsely claiming to own copyrights in (or to have the owners&rsquo; authorization to delete)
material from Hotfile.com. Worse, Warner continued to make these misrepresentations even
after Hotfile explicitly brought this rampant abuse to Warner&rsquo;s attention, ruling out any
possibility that its wrongful actions were accidental or unknowing. Thus, Warner has knowingly
made misrepresentations and it has engaged in DMCA abuse on an unprecedented scale by
grossly misusing the powerful anti-piracy software tool that Hotfile specially created at Warner&rsquo;s
request.
</i></blockquote>
The details suggest that Warner started taking down more and more content, even taking down some very popular freeware software that had been purposely uploaded to Hotfile for distribution by its creators.  It also appears to have used very questionable simple phrase matching, such as deleting all files that had "the box" in the file name, even if they were totally unrelated to the WB movie "The Box."  So that, too, doesn't look good for Warner Bros.
<br /><br />
The only thing I'm not sure about here, though, is whether or not Hotfile actually has standing to bring such a claim.  I would have thought that it had to be done by the actual copyright holder of the content taken down (or someone else injured by such a takedown).  I'm not sure that Hotfile can make such a claim.
<br /><br />
Separately, some of these defense and counterclaims are really just directed at Warner Bros., which is only one of the five studios suing -- so Hotfile may still have some issues with the other four.  Separately, I just noticed that Paramount is missing from the suing studios.  There are six major studios, and all of them except Paramount are involved.  That's a bit surprising, since Paramount execs have been some of the most vocal execs speaking out against cyberlockers.  Anyone know why they chose not to join in on this one?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/11592315933/hotfile-responds-to-lawsuit-filed-studios-countersues-warner-bros-copyright-misuse.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/11592315933/hotfile-responds-to-lawsuit-filed-studios-countersues-warner-bros-copyright-misuse.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/11592315933/hotfile-responds-to-lawsuit-filed-studios-countersues-warner-bros-copyright-misuse.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>now-this-starts-to-get-interesting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110913/11592315933</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Drops Key Claim In MPAA's Case Against Hotfile: Cyberlocker Didn't Directly Infringe</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110711/10591815046/judge-drops-key-claim-mpaas-case-against-hotfile-cyberlocker-didnt-directly-infringe.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110711/10591815046/judge-drops-key-claim-mpaas-case-against-hotfile-cyberlocker-didnt-directly-infringe.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The MPAA has recently decided that "cyberlockers" are enemy number one on its most wanted list, even though they serve perfectly legitimate purposes.  As something of a test case, the MPAA <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/13165613006/mpaa-files-surprisingly-weak-billion-dollar-lawsuit-against-hotfile.shtml">sued Hotfile</a> (and its owner, directly) with an astonishingly weak case.  After reading it, we were surprised that it didn't include more detail.  The case seemed full of conjecture and claims that simply didn't match with reality.  While I still think the main show is whether or not Hotfile is guilty of secondary infringement via inducement, the MPAA was certainly betting on a direct infringement claim to be a key part of the argument.
<br><br>
Thankfully, the judge <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/florida-judge-tosses-a-key-209620" target="_blank">wasted little time in dismissing the direct infringement claims</a>.  The judge points out, as we did in our initial post on the lawsuit, that the MPAA's weak filing fails to point out any evidence of direct infringement:
<blockquote><i>
"Nothing in the complaint alleges that Hotfile or Mr. Titov took direct, volitional steps to violate the plaintiffs' infringement. There are no allegations, say, that Hotfile uploaded copyrighted material. Therefore, under the great weight of authority, the plaintiffs have failed to allege direct copyright infringement."
</i></blockquote>
Where this becomes really important is that it means that Hotfile may be protected by the DMCA's safe harbors.  Direct infringement isn't covered by the safe harbors.  Now, the case will shift (among other things) to see whether or not (like YouTube and Veoh) Hotfile has correctly met the conditions to get safe harbor protection.  Of course, it's entirely likely that the MPAA, in its quixotic quest, will appeal this particular part of the ruling, but next time, they should try to provide some actual evidence of direct infringement rather than just insisting that it must be true.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110711/10591815046/judge-drops-key-claim-mpaas-case-against-hotfile-cyberlocker-didnt-directly-infringe.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110711/10591815046/judge-drops-key-claim-mpaas-case-against-hotfile-cyberlocker-didnt-directly-infringe.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110711/10591815046/judge-drops-key-claim-mpaas-case-against-hotfile-cyberlocker-didnt-directly-infringe.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-good-start</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110711/10591815046</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>