Slashdot Mirror
Hotfile Sues Warner Bros Over Abuse of Takedown Tool
schwit1 writes with a piece in Torrent Freak about ongoing litigation between Hotfile and a few movie studios. From the article: "Hotfile has sued Warner Bros. for fraud and abuse. Hotfile accuses the movie studio of systematically abusing its anti-piracy tool by taking down hundreds of titles they don't hold the copyrights to, including open source software. Among other things, Hotfile is looking for damages to compensate the company for the losses they suffered."
Near the end of the article it is mentioned that files taken down by the tool were replaced with links to legally procure similar works from Warner Bros.
The use of tools was a significant early step in the development of humankind. Maybe, in as little as a couple million years, the big studios will be ready to be part of civilized society.
I would really like someone to hold them to that.
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal. But, stating under penalty of perjury that you own a copyrighted work, and clearly not having checked to see if you do ... well, that should be treated with some pretty harsh legal consequences. In fact, maybe someone can spin it so that the Warner pays the statutory damages as if they pirated the work ... what's that, like 9 trillion dollars per offending file?
Hopefully Hotfile gets some traction on this one.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
sue them for also all the possible content we may have downloaded and lost on.
"I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
Near the end of the article it is mentioned that files taken down by the tool were replaced with links to legally procure similar works from Warner Bros.
I didn't RTFA, but the summary mentions open source software. Did it become illegal to download OSS while I slept last night?
The article states loss of accounts and goodwill, but a software publisher was using hotfile to distribute his freeware app, and Warner deleted his files.
Hopefully Hotfile has the money to go the distance on this one and not settle out of court.
Hopefully the judge won't let Warner and the other four studios drop the case so no precedent can be set.
I might almost buy that Warner was using a piece of software and a script and made some mistakes, btu that the mistakes got worse after they were notified that is negligence.
Too bad they won't get fined MAFFIAA imaginary numbers. How many freeware downloads didn't happen because they deleted the file, must have been millions at $750 a piece right?
Near the end of the article it is mentioned that files taken down by the tool were replaced with links to legally procure similar works from Warner Bros.
Just to clarify any misunderstandings about what this meant(Emphasis mine):
Hotfile suspects that the overbroad takedowns were not only an attempt to prevent copyright infringement, but also a scheme to make profits. Warner proposed to Hotfile an affiliate deal where content that was taken down would be replaced with links to movie stores where users could buy Warner movies. More takedowns thus means more potential revenue.
"Warner had an economic motive to make these misrepresentations. As noted above, in early 2010, Warner proposed a business arrangement with Hotfile whereby Warner sought to present ecommerce links to Hotfile users who might purchase a Warner file for Warner's profit in place of links that Warner had deleted using its SRA."
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
(Posting AC because I'm at work)
"Hotfile explains that Warner’s Special Rightsholder Account (SRA) is assigned to Michael Bentkover, Manager of Anti-Piracy Internet Operations at the movie studio."
Seriously?! Is that name for real?
I think someone is going to get bent over, if these allegations are true (as I suspect they are...).
Make there be a statutory damage value and cause of action for each false DMCA takedown which is the same ($150,000 ?) as for each instance of copyright infringement.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The DMCA gives copyright holders the power to take down content based on little more than their say so. It is therefore very important that making bogus DMCA claims carry penalties commensurate with the damage (both moral and monetary) suffered by those whose content is taken down by means of fraudulent or negligent copyright claims.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Also, Warner Bros should loose their rights under the DMCA to issue takedown requests at all, since they clearly cannot be trusted to issue valid requests.
I wonder to what extent Lenz v. Universal and the unclean hands doctrine can be extrapolated to keep a service provider's safe harbor intact when faced with takedown requests from someone suspected of perjury.
A valiant effort on Hotfile's part but they'd have better luck pulling hairs out of a honeybadger's ass than getting that lawsuit to stick.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
According to the complaint, Warner systematically misused the anti-piracy takedown tool (SRA) Hotfile had built for them.
So Hotfile built a tool called SRA (which stands for Special Rightsholder Account? Go figure.) that Warner uses to take down whatever it wants without Hotfile having to get involved. Is anyone surprised that Warner then took down whatever they thought might in some way, shape or form relate to something that they do hold the copyright to?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
from the faq:
Q.Can I search the Hotfile server for certain files?
A. No. Hotfile protects the privacy of our users. Only the person storing a file on Hotfile gets the download link. That person decides who should have access to the link. A file can only be downloaded if the download link details are known.
it should read:
Q.Can I search the Hotfile server for certain files?
A. Yes. Hotfile do not protect the privacy of our users. All major Hollywood Companies get acces to your download link. These companys decides who should have access to the link. They can download and look at your private files as they wish. They can choose to delete your files.
a software publisher was using hotfile to distribute his freeware app, and Warner deleted his files.
Was it a clone of a video game published by Williams, Atari Games, Tengen, or Midway? Because Warner might be under the impression that, say, a video game with the same rules as Joust or Klax infringes Warner's copyright in Joust or Klax. I've seen other video game companies, such as The Tetris Company, aggressively pursue clones of their products even when distributed under a different name.
from: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content,br.,br. The highlighted part:
Section 512(f) of the DMCA creates liability for knowingly making false claims in a DMCA takedown notice or counter-notice. See 17 U.S.C. 512(f). So, if you claim in a counter-notice that your content does not infringe the complaining party's copyrighted work while knowing this to be false, then the copyright owner can win damages from you, including court costs and attorneys' fees stemming from your wrongful counter-notice. Note, however, that this provision also works against a person or company sending a wrongful takedown notice. If someone claims in a takedown notice that you are infringing their copyrighted material while knowing this to be false, then you can win damages from them in a lawsuit. In recent years, the targets of wrongful takedowns have fought back and won damages and favorable settlements from individuals and companies sending bogus takedown notices. For instance, in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004), two students and their ISP sued voting machine manufacturer Diebold after it tried to use DMCA takedown notices to disable access to Internet postings of the company's leaked internal email archive. The court granted summary judgment to the students and ISP on their claim, finding that portions of the email archive were so clearly subject to the fair use defense that "[n]o reasonable copyright holder could have believed that [they] were protected by copyright." According to the EFF, Diebold subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 in damages and fees to settle the lawsuit. For another example, see Crook v. 10 Zen Monkeys in our legal threats database. Someone who has sent a baseless takedown notice about your content may be more inclined to back off if you remind him or her about section 512(f) of the DMCA, in addition to sending a counter-notice.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I bet this would stop the illegal requests a lot sooner than a request for cash.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The tool replaced files with links to *similar* works, or were they the *same* works? And if they were the *same* works, does Warner have the rights to them?
C|N>K
It got me out of a bad non-compete, I think the "if you plan on continuing start saving all your emails" and the potential cost of discovery helped.
How about stop buying crap and supporting from these freakin "entertainment" companies?
Oh wait. That actually takes (minimal) effort and you might not get to see that one movie. Those crazy priorities!!!
From the actual document it was very clear that WB had sued hotfile. Why would slashdot article title claim that hotfile sued wb? They're just responding.
Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp., circumstances aren't the same, but they do establish that copyright holders must exercise good faith in determining that a copyright infringement has actually occurred before filing a takedown notice. They don't specifically set out what constitutes good faith, but clearly removing items that simply contained the words "The Box" wouldn't qualify given this "fair use" precedent actually included 29 seconds of copyrighted material and was deemed plausible enough fair use for the counterclaim to proceed.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. was a 2007 case in which the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet. Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a home video of her children dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy."[1] Universal Music Corporation (Universal) sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claiming that Lenz's video violated their copyright in the "Let's Go Crazy" song. Lenz claimed fair use of the copyrighted material and sued Universal for misrepresentation of a DMCA claim. The court held that, in violation of the DMCA, Universal had not in good faith considered fair use when filing a takedown notice.
The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in preventing abuse of the DMCA as a means to stifle controversial speech.
And USC 17 S512 subsection (f) establishes penalties for misrepresentation by either the copyright holder or the alleged infringer
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
How easy would it be for someone to make up a language,
come on here and start using it?
How easy would it be to understand it?
Yeah... see, every time someone does not follow the conventions
of the accepted language... they are doing just that, making up
their OWN GODDAMN LANGUAGE.
Now, for all the fucking asshat retards that ALWAYS fucking
say... what about if English isn't their first language and all
that bullshit.
Well what about the poor fucks trying to read their indecipherable
scratch to understand what they are saying... and English isn't
their first language? Don't you think it would be nice for the idiot
that LEARNED the language to at least use it the way it was
intended so those that did NOT formally learn the language can
understand?
Yeah... see, funny thing that about language. It REALLY ONLY
WORKS WHEN EVERYONE INVOLVED KNOWS WHAT THE
FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
So, yeah... grammar nazis, punctuation nazis, spelling nazis.
Or maybe they are like myself and feel it is SOOOO much simpler
to read someone's drivel when they AT LEAST MAKE IT A HABIT
TO MAKE IT READABLE TO EVERYONE INVOLVED.
-@|
PS... as far as netspeak, smsspeak, etc... I have accepted that
THOSE are natural evolutions of language. However, that does not
allow the devolution of the language as it stands.