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.

Comments

under penalty of perjury

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:under penalty of perjury

[Baloroth]

Actually, it's worse then that. They then replaced the file (they didn't own) with links to purchase their own works. IMHO (IANAL, though) that is commercial infringement of copyright, and commercial infringement is a criminal offense. So is perjury, for that matter.

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. Make them get a court order every single time. Hopefully, this will serve as a nice precedent against automated takedown tools in the future.

Re:under penalty of perjury

[crankyspice]

The DMCA's penalty of perjury language only applies to the statement that the author is "authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi) (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512).

If I work for Consolidated Pictures, which owns the rights to the movie The Cairo Goose, and I send a DMCA takedown notice on the file MSDN_Preview_WinNT_Cairo-{g00s3}.rar, and state under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights in The Cairo Goose, I'm fine, even though upon closer inspection the RAR file is, on its face, obviously not a copy of my employer's motion picture. (It's someone else's copyright to enforce. ;))

To be clear, I'm not saying (in a DMCA takedown) that I own the rights to that /file/, I'm identifying a work (The Cairo Goose), saying under penalty of perjury that I'm authorized to act on behalf of the rights holder of that work (The Cairo Goose), and, not under penalty of perjury, that I have a good-faith belief that the file in question is a copy of The Cairo Goose.

Note that 512(f) does provide liability "for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer" when a DMCA notification "knowingly materially misrepresent[s]" infringement.

Also, 512(g) provides for reinstatement of content upon counter-notification where there was a "mistake or misidentification of the material..."

Re:under penalty of perjury

[prakslash]

It is apparent what is happening.

The studios are using the results of simple keyword searches to trigger takedowns. As an example, while claiming to remove files that are copies of the movie "The Box", Warner removed several files related to the alternative cancer treatment book "Cancer: Out Of The Box" Another title deleted by Warner was "The Box that Saved Britain", a production of the BBC, not Warner.

If the studios want Hotfile to spend time and resources to stop aiding in the distribution of the studios' copyrighted content, then it is also the studios' responsibility to spend their own time and resources to correctly identify their copyrighted content.

A proposed solution

[DickBreath]

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.

This should happen more often!

[Adrian Lopez]

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.

*BEEEEP* FAIL!

[snugge]

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.