Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules "Locker" Site Is Not Direct Copyright
suraj.sun writes "A federal judge in Miami has dismissed direct copyright infringement charges against Hotfile, a popular online "locker" service that the major Hollywood studios allege is responsible for massive copyright infringement. But he allowed the case to proceed on charges that Hotfile has induced and profited from the infringing activities of its users. The case, which began in February, represents the latest front in the never-ending arms race between Hollywood studios and users seeking free copies of their movies. Hotfile is a "cyberlocker" site. Users upload files they wish to share with others and are rewarded financially if these files prove popular. The studios allege that the overwhelming majority of the files users upload to Hotfile are copyrighted content being distributed without the consent of copyright holders' like themselves."
Court rules title on website not a full.
This is fairly standard given current law, and is the "easy" part of the win. Hosts of these kinds of user-driven content sites (e.g. YouTube) are not themselves considered to be violating copyright when copyrighted material ends up on them. The harder part is that sites alleged to be largely organized around promoting infringement can be held liable, under circumstances not completely clarified, for some variety fo inducement or contributory infringement. The Napster case was the leading one in that area.
So the fact that they got direct-infringement charges dismissed doesn't mean a whole lot, for better or worse; that was mostly a foregone conclusion, and I'd guess was thrown in just on the off chance that plaintiffs would get lucky with their draw of judges. The controversial part of the case, whether Hotfile is more Napster-like or more YouTube-like, is still to come.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
is to kill "locker" sites entirely.
"Lockers" take away from the things the studios want you to purchase, simple as that. Alleging "oh they use these as dropboxes for infringement blarrgh rawr think of the children terrorism rawr" is just bullshit.
It's rather like Hollyweird's quiet support for the various "restrict video game sales think of the children" bullshit laws - Hollyweird is being eclipsed by interactive media.
That and the quiet push to make it so that DVR's can't play back to a recording device. They've been trying to kill off VCR-tape type home archiving for ages.
"users seeking free copies of their movies" is being a little disingenuous. How many of the people who would download the movie off of hotfile actually own the DVD? I'd wager a vanishingly small percentage.
Find comfort in knowing that while the copyright trolls continue their march into the bowels of the internet, other companies will have opportunities to succeed who take advantage of more creative business models (i.e. Hulu, Netfix) rather than force old models down the throats of customers. Those new models don't have to spend millions on lawyers and instead can spend that money on R&D and outpace and outprofit those older models. Essentially the damage has bee done, these companies are the new Borders to Amazon, or Best Buy to NewEgg. They won't win, even if they win this battle.
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
Did they not listen to the point of the website? Upload shit. If it's popular, get paid.
Upload the same fucking movies that these users upload, and in higher quality. Get paid.
Cars can be used to kill people, let's ban cars.
They use DRM.
That is, they have decided to create a situation where pirated content (the stuff they don't get paid for) is worth a lot more: easier to use, more reliable, more functional, and interoperable with more devices than their own for-sale content. And they are entirely in control of this; it's a decision, not a accident of fate or luck.
If you offer them money in exchange for hassle-free content, they say NO.
If they wanted to get paid, they would offer what pirates offer, except in exchange for money. Pirates have already done the research and proved that people want it. Moving to a for-profit model would be a move completely free of risk and R&D.
If someone says No to money, and continues to voluntarily create conditions which punish people who stubbornly pay them, and benefit those who give up on the hassles of doing business with someone who doesn't want to do business, I think that is pretty strong evidence that they want to not be paid.
Interestingly, they are owned by companies that also produce hardware (e.g. Sony). I'm not saying they're not in business, just that they're not in the business of selling content.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Isn't the DMCA supposed to protect such services against these kinds of lawsuits? So long as the operators of these websites respond to DMCA takedown requests on a timely manner, they really should not be held responsible for their users' actions. To make the operators of these services liable for their users' actions would no doubt harm those who seek to use them for legitimate purposes such as distributing their own original content.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
The DMCA is SUPPOSED to protect services like Hotfile but really its just a tool for the big guys (like Youtube) to use to create a mask of legitimacy and no one else.
Really, this is nothing more than the same legal argument Hollywood tried to use against Youtube a few years back.
Hollywood: "Your users are posting our content without permission!"
Youtube:"Well, find out what videos contain infringing content and we'll take it down."
Hollywood: "That requires too much effort, you do it!"
Youtube: "Wtf? No! The law says its your burden."
Hollywood: "Fine! I'll see you in court!"
Youtube: "?!"
A federal judge in Miami has dismissed direct copyright infringement charges against Hotfile, a popular online "locker" service that the major Hollywood studios allege is responsible for massive copyright infringement.
I love studio thinking here: Sure, Hotfile is responsible for copyright infringement just as Stanley Tools is responsible for murder every time one of their hammers is used to kill someone. There's a difference between enabling a crime and being responsible for it. Mind you, Hotfile is paying its users to upload files to be shared, so they aren't helping themselves or anyone else wanting to store their media online.