Slashdot Mirror
Google Files Amicus Brief in Hotfile Case; MPAA Requests It Be Rejected
An anonymous reader writes "Google has once again stood up in court for the rights of users and services online, this time defending Hotfile from copyright infringement accusations. [Quoting the article]: 'Google takes a sort of hard-line approach via the DMCA, telling the court that however the MPAA may try to mislead them, Hotfile is in fact protected under safe harbor provisions. And furthermore, Google suggests that the MPAA's approach is contrary to the language in and precedents surrounding the DMCA. The onus is on copyright holders to alert a service to the nature and location of an infringement, and the service's responsibility is to alert the user if possible and remove the material within a reasonable period of time.'"
The full brief has been uploaded to Scribd. The MPAA, naturally, has requested that the amicus brief be rejected by the court: "Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage — as well as an effort by Hotfile (whose counsel also represent Google) to circumvent its page limits. Google is acting as a partisan advocate for Hotfile, making arguments that Hotfile has or could have made in its own opposition to summary judgment. The parties here are well-represented and have the incentive and wherewithal to make all the arguments the court will need. Although Google purports not to take a position regarding summary judgment here, Google unmistakably seeks a ruling against plaintiffs. Google's motion should be denied"
Let's just elect Google.
Take the Red Pill.
They are defending themselves, and only themselves, because Google owns several services that violate copyrights on a huge scale. Hotfile, or someone else, losing would be really bad for Google. Now, you may think this is noble effort, but do not twist it, tell it honestly.
Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage
Isn't this what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to do with SOPA/PIPA and all these other bills? I guess it's only ok when they do it though.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
An anonymous reader writes
Google writes. (But that's not important.)
Google has once again stood up in court for the rights of users and services online,
Bullshit. Google's data acquisition power is, to my mind, the biggest threat to a free Internet. And it's standing up for its "right" to collect, index and distribute as much data as possible, including data from these services.
Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage
Of course. That's typical of amicus curiae. A shame the submitter tries to twist this into some pro-Google propaganda.
If anyone should be trying to protect their revenue stream on this one, it's google...
If enough users hit their 5th or 6th strike, that would impinge on googles money.
We need someone like Microsoft (antitrust experience) to help fight this crap. Also, it couldn't hurt Microsoft to gain a little positive press.
What the fuck kind of "citation" are you looking for? This isn't the kind of shit that useless academics write useless academic papers about!
In fact, this is the kind of topic where citations are useless. This is at a much higher level than academic papers which merely state the obvious. This kind of analysis depends on experience, intuition, a knowledge of history, a knowledge of technology, a knowledge of business, an understanding of corporate relations and the impact of the law.
The broad range of knowledge needed in a case like this actually flies right in the face of academia. Academia today is about hyperspecialization. It's about one person knowing a useless amount about one very specific thing, while knowing next to nothing about everything outside of this very tall and very narrow silo. In an environment like this, you just don't get papers worth citing in the real world.
Whilst I agree with your post - Google as a corporate with significant business interests that could be affected by this case will incontrovertibly attempt to protect itself - if it comes down to a question of mafiAA or Google, I'll take the latter every time. Better the devil that knows you than the one that tries to stick your ass in jail.
Because when I think "Google," I think "Oh, hey, golly, THERE's a corporation that's looking out for my rights, yes-sir-ree-bob!"
Jeezus... you fanbois are starting to get dangerous...
I'd +1 interesting you if I had points.
Fine. Let's take it a step up:
Court fines and successful injunctions against Google relating to copyright infringement. With links to said cases.
Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?
Google takes a hardline aproache to the DCMA? Why the hell don't they with Youtube takedowns then? I will answer my own questions, because DCMA takedowns are not threatening revenue streams there. Money with a facade of resppnsibility is all the are. Many companies have dispensed with the facade, google will too someday.
Silence is a state of mime.
Pointing out the facts is not a 'systematic effort to influence the development of the law'. In fact it's been the MPAA and similar organisations that have been doing that, and the only ones who have been doing that, not by pointing out facts, but by describing their own fantasies (about how much they could earn, of course without thinking that if more money is spent on MPAA stuff, less is spent on other sectors in society) , and nightmares (about how much they're getting ripped off), and with their bribes (a.k.a. lobbying).
And of course these people don't even understand their clients: The obnoxious 'don't copy' ads at the start of DVDs is almost enough to make me want to 'pirate' stuff.
Accusing others of what they do themselves is something I found to be a typical trait of sociopaths in humans, and corporations are designed and geared to be exactly that, which shows the problems involved with corporations. Reduce liability: If a corporations spout such nonsense as this, they should be held in contempt of court, i.e. everyone responsible: The lawyers, and the entire board of directors etc.
Why?
No, seriously, I'm intrigued. How does the information Google may have on you make the Internet less free?
Does any information Walmart or Visa might have on you make you less free when you're in a mall?
This is the MPAA you're quoting, after all. I recognize your right to a fair use of their work of authorship, but it's doubtful their lawyers would with the positions they take... A C&D letter might be in your future...
- Data mining homogenises culture. You find out what people seem to like and emphasise it, either for them specifically or in general, entrenching habits and interests and reducing the opportunity for admission of new ideas. This results in stagnation and, if history is anything to go by, decline. Hell, Google's very "Pagerank" is based on making you more likely to see what other people have already approved.
To raise your Walmart example, while it looks like you're awash with choice (lots of differently coloured shiny boxes), coming from Europe I couldn't understand just how little there was in the way of good quality fresh food in the average US supermarket. And how the same flavour enhancers were in so many things. The whole supermarket experience in the US seems to have been refined to addict people to particular eating behaviour - analyse, reduce, analyse, reduce. A couple of decades on, it's as true in some of Europe.
- A single powerful entity collecting information about you reduces your ability to make meaningful dissent. You will be ignored until you start making a difference, at which point it is only natural for anyone to use any means possible to collect information to use against you. This is already a real problem in the UK, where various "anti-terror" laws providing wide-ranging government powers at central and local level have been applied for trivial offences.
Put another way, 17 years ago on the Internet I would happily discuss anything and distribute anything, at the very most employing something like anon.penet.fi. Every idea and every method of implementing that idea was fair game - you were responsible for using the information responsibly. I can't do that today. Most people are too scared of the consequences not of their actions but of expression of their thoughts.
I'm sorry? Are you really suggesting that there isn't huge amounts of copyright infringement on youTube? Google themselves may technically not be guilty of infringement according to the law, but since the OP wasn't suggesting they were, it's sort of a moot point.
Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?
No, that's a principle in law. In terms of forming our own opinions, we can presume whatever we want.
"Our opponents are trying to defend their interests, therefore their request should be denied"
Well played, MPAA lawyers.
Seriously. How much are these guys billing per hour?
At this point they're starting to sound like a petulant child, repeatedly throwing temper tantrums and screaming "NO NO NO!!!" over and over again. Or would a better analogy be a guy standing in the middle of a flood, trying to stop the rushing waters by holding out his hands?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Choosing between two groups that may not have my best interests in mind... The MPAA never did, but google doesn't want to destroy the internet. In the future I cannot say this will be true, but for now I would stop at nothing to stop the MPAA. Bastards.
Does any information Walmart or Visa might have on you make you less free when you're in a mall?
Actually were it not for the law then yes, Visa or Walmart could make you less free. Consider this, Visa already has a very good profile on its customers. Think about it, every time you use your magic card, the transaction is recorded and the item you have bought. Now what's to forbid Visa from datamining all those profiles and then selling the information to insurance companies ? Hey customer X just bought several medical books on cancer. After 2 days you get a nice message from your health insurance that your costs have just gone up 'cause you're now considered a risk.
What about if you buy gay literature ? The examples are infinite.
Google has many different services. As long as those services are INDEPENDANT no problem. But right now they're not and they represent a danger to every single user of their system. Unfortunately the law simply hasn't been fast enough to deal with these new situations. But yes if you use google or facebook be very afraid. Your freedom is just one step from being sold to the highest bidder. And once its done, you can't push the reset button.
"Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage"
Talk about projecting your feelings...
[Begin MPAA Mode]
Why, of course it is! How dare they bring up facts that run counter to the MPAA's case! Don't they know that piracy costs content creators eleventy bazillion dollars every nanosecond? Don't they know that piracy results in twelve thousand lost jobs per second, cancer of the ear lobe, muggings, global warming, and the hiccups? Google should be immediately turned over to the MPAA to operate for the good of us all!!!! (Is that enough exclamation points yet? No, I think it needs three more) !!! (There, perfect.)
[End MPAA Mode]
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
several services that violate copyrights
Services can not violate copyrights; only people can.
Emphasis mine.
Your post was just a very long way of saying "No".
Google are not defending the internet here, its purely profits, it's in this clause here:
"Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving disqualifying knowledge."
"Courts have consistently held that to disqualify an otherwise eligible service provider under the DMCA’s knowledge or awareness provisions, the plaintiff must come forward with evidence that the provider had knowledge or awareness of particular infringing material but did not expeditiously remove it"
See, Google accepts DMCA takedown notices from the copyright holder, as it's required to do. However if it ever had prior-knowledge of copyright infringement, it would lose DMCA protection if it failed to act on that. You don't get the DMCA protection if you have prior knowledge of the infringement.
So what Google does is REFUSE to be told about infringement outside of a DMCA request from the rights holder.
They could have the latest Harry Potter movie on Youtube, uploaded by 'Bobski1972' from Moscow you could try to report it, as you click through their website to find the form to report it, you'll find you cannot report the infringement, only the copyright holder can. You hit a dead end page saying they only accept copyright infringement information in the form of DMCA take down notices from the copyright holder.
They refuse to be told of the infringement to keep the DMCA provision intact. Without that they would have to accept a lot more copyright infringement notices and would have to evaluate each individually to see if they are plausible.
But that would be expensive and they want to avoid that expense.
If you think it is not a loss of freedom for a gun to be held at your head merely because the law prevents a man from shooting it (just yet), then you are a fool.
Uh huh. Your life must be miserable. How can you function if you live in constant fear of someone doing hypothetical yet highly unlikely things all the time? Do you worry that the mob might plant a bomb under your car? Do you worry that a meteorite may fall from the sky and strike you dead? Do you worry that some crazy person might poison your water supply?
If the answer to the above is "No", then why do you worry about these other hypothetical scenarios that you've concocted with no evidence?
Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?
Not anymore. Now it's "due process is not the same as judicial process", and you are free to go about your business until we drone you.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Oh yeah? Excellent. I just formed an opinion that the earth is flat.
We have Google to thank for helping our congress figure out that the Entertainment industry isn't the only private interest with money to spend... er--uh-- contribute. When you have pro-corporate politicians on BOTH sides of the isle coming against SOPA and PIPA when both measures formerly enjoyed so-called elusive bipartisan support, that can only mean one thing:
It started raining money on the other side of the issue.
The tech companies are now large enough and rich enough to make themselves both felt and heard. It's only a matter of time before the entertainment industry stops their offense and goes for a negotiated settlement. Their business models are in jeopardy and as they lose their ability to rig the game in their favor their days are only going to get darker not brighter. They're scared and they should be.
Good for you. Hope that works out well for you in life.
So are we just going to be nitpicking?
Let's rephrase entirely.
There's a whole bunch of stuff on youTube that is posted in violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights to do so. Google knows this. They are also aware that if this ruling goes against Hotfile, it will lead to a precedent that could cause considerable inconvenience for them.
Google's main concern is not about the morality, or finding who's responsible, or even reducing piracy. It's simply about mitigating a potential risk to Google's current business model.
This kind of analysis depends on experience, intuition, a knowledge of history, a knowledge of technology, a knowledge of business, an understanding of corporate relations and the impact of the law.
That is what a citation is - a demonstration that other people understand can relay experience, intuition, history, technology, business corporate relations and the law.
An example for you:
Chambers Online Dictionary:
citation noun
1 the quoting or citing of something as example or proof.
Are you stupid or just trolling? The issue is not one of fearing anything which might possibly happen, but with giving someone so much power that all that's required is a minor change in the law for you to be fucked. Anyway, it's commonplace for people to be found out selling medical records in a legally dubious manner (why do you guys think you have HIPAA - or, rather, why do you think it took such a long time for HIPAA to appear?) - if you concentrate hard enough you might also find some fairly strong government pushes to sell medical data to private companies, part of the reason there was such a backlash at attempts to NHS records.
And anyone with the most basic security clearance will know that you do disclose information on your purchases because they will find out and ask you about it anyway otherwise. It used to be that homosexuality was considered a liability for certain intelligence work (Martin+Mitchell, Cambridge Five...). In the UK for tax or welfare investigations various public bodies (not just the police!) have the power to obtain copies of financial transactions without your consent, and government has repeatedly tried in the last decade to use its investigative powers to discover and freeze the accounts of suspected terrorists and their families - although some such orders have fortunately been quashed by the courts after years of fighting (HM Treasury v. Ahmed (2010)). So, in short, centralised databases of everything are used to abuse power all the time.
Pointing out facts seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to influence the law. Preventing it to be bend out of shape by fantasies is also influencing it. Just in a reasonable way.
"Google has once again stood up in court for the rights of users and services online"
Oh my God... I can't hold it back... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What an idiot.
We need someone like Microsoft (antitrust experience) to help fight this crap.
Except they lost, and only got off easy due to a change in political leadership that was more friendly to large, monolithic, monopolistic companies that occurred right when the trial was over.
So worry about it if they try to change the law!
What the hell has the UK government and security clearance got to do with data held and used by private companies? Of course your government want to know everything about you if you're being trusted with state secrets!
That's amazingly common: IMHO, the folks who accuse others of X are often terrified that they will be accused of X, and strike out at other without realizing what they're implying.
This has the pleasant effect of making it easy to discover what they're doing, and afraid of being called on (;-))
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Youtube and similar services have a legitimate business model. YouTube goes above and beyond what they should ever be required to do, and their current policies are unbalanced to the point that they have a chilling effect on clearly legitimate speech. That the MPAA et al are still asking for more and more is irrelevant.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality, because copyright is not a moral system, but a practical one, and practically speaking, there are no further benefits to the public that can arise from any strengthening of copyright, and a lot of benefits that would arise from weakening it or enfrocement.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Google should just change a few words and use the MPAA quote as a template:
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about Google's motives and how the MPAA is acting. But at least from my understanding of the law, Google is right. The safe harbor provision to DMCA was made for exactly the reason Google says, and the MPAA is trying to grab more legal power, beyond the vast powers DMCA already grants them.
I'm not a knee-jerk Google fan-boy, and I understand Google has a dog in the fight, but in this case, Google is right.
So worry about it if they try to change the law!
OK, you're stupid. 1) I gave an example of a present attempt to change the law on dissemination of health records; 2) waiting until "they try to change the law" is the worst possible apathy. If the law is successfuly changed then you're fucked, as you can't claw back that information.
What the hell has the UK government and security clearance got to do with data held and used by private companies? Of course your government want to know everything about you if you're being trusted with state secrets!
Well, let's see... firstly "security clearance" doesn't necessarily mean working as a CIA agent - it might mean something as trivial as working in a CCTV room for the police (to give an example from my family). And why should your government or, increasingly, a private contractor know the intended orifice of the dildo you bought three years ago? Why is this relevant?
Really, you ought to just sell me your full financial transaction and medical history for $5.00 on the condition that I sign a document stating that I will not reveal the information to a third party. After all, you now have the protection of the law, so there's no need to worry about everything I know.
Are you going to address the whole post or just a couple of sentences?
Youtube and similar services have a legitimate business model.
Yes, but it seems the MPAA are trying to get a ruling that would put the legitimacy in question.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality,
I thought I was quite explicit that it's not about morality. I brought it up because the way people were arguing suggested that they felt Google's ethics were being called into question. I want to make it clear that this is not what the argument is about.
Just the few sentences. Because no matter what I say, your over-riding emotions are paranoia and fear. As I'm not a psychiatrist, there really isn't much I can do about that.
2/10. It would have been higher but that last post pretty much ruined your efforts.
> So are we just going to be nitpicking?
The law is just like programming. The little details matter. You can't ignore a single comma or semicolon. You certainly ignore "bigger" things.
So, yeah those nits are important.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yes, but it seems the MPAA are trying to get a ruling that would put the legitimacy in question.
Which is why we need to fight them, obviously. Because YouTube is useful to us, as people. Making it go away would be very bad for us, as people.
I mean what the hell is this "OMFG Google is evil because their interests align with ours and so they aren't helping us out of charity!" Who cares? They're helping us, aren't they? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
cant wait for Google to be torn apart by the DOJ............. the days are coming!
"Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage..."
The law has already been developed. Is Google helping to make sure it's not being perverted by the perverts of the MPAA/RIAA, yes. Is it to their benefit, yes, along with the rest of us.
We need suggestions!
That is all.
"MPAA's lawsuit appears to be part of a systematic effort by MPAA, itself a plantif in ongoing lawsuits, to influence the development of the law to MPAA's own advantage."
There, fixed that for them.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Where is Apple? They are no longer the poor, dying company they were so many years ago. They profit handsomely from both sides of this debate (selling content companies' media for a profit and selling devices to consumers at a profit). They have power, influence, and some money.
I think it is time for Apple to step up. For the company of record with the '1984' and 'Lemmings' commercials, I find it distasteful that Apple has seemingly only used their financial fortunes to engage in trifling patent wars. One letter from Steve Jobs changed the course of DRM on music. Yet Apple has sat quietly by as Google and Amazon have waded head-first into the DMCA battle royal. No, that's wrong, they have NOT sat by, in fact Apple has quietly worked to sign deals with the DMCA-abusing content providers that covers over the questions being debated. Apple is paying iTunes Match money as "streaming royalties" to RIAA on music that was already legally purchased and for which royalties were paid. Surely double-dip paying the RIAA isn't in the consumers' or artists' best interests. The basic assumption is that ALL music that gets matched (that wasn't from the iTunes store) was pirated...and that is both a lie and a dangerous precedent to Google's (consumer friendly) position. Apple cannot allow their animosity towards Google distract them from maintaining what is right for THEIR supporters and customers.
Apple needs to make their position on the DMCA known: does the consumer have fair-use rights or not? Because I, for one, known where my money goes based on the answer.
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
"Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality,"
the same reason people bring up race when you disagree with someone of another race. they have no other way to respond so they throw out whatever card they have in their crappy hand.
The law has already had it's Bar and Bat Mitzvah and it's fully responsible for its actions. It's you who try to suddenly change everything.
I mean what the hell is this "OMFG Google is evil because their interests align with ours and so they aren't helping us out of charity!"
Did you read it as that?
I read it as a response to the exact opposite viewpoint. "OMG Google is a white knight on a charger who is here to save us all"
But I agree with you. Both extremes are wrong, and there's good reason to support Google here.
and after the battle The Watchers come in and dispose of the "body"
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Both extremes are wrong
The trouble is that you still kind of have to pick one. Google is like a dog that chases that rats and raccoons out of the yard. The dog doesn't scare off the vermin because it cares whether the raccoons get into the bird feeder or spread trash all over the driveway, it does it because it's a dog and that's what dogs do.
But you still have to make a decision as to whether you want to feed the dog and try to keep it around so that your yard stays free of vermin. And that seems like a pretty obvious decision, even if the dog leaves the occasional advertisement on your doorstep.
Services like Hotfile have a legitimate use, and the ones who survive have also ensured that their business model is as airtight as the lawyers can advise them it is. There are lots of people out there who generate multi-gigabyte files in their work and for whom it's inconvenient (time, cost) to physically deliver the file to the client. For people like this, filesharing services like Hotfile and Mediafire can be indispensable.
FC Closer
Ha! You nailed it with "copyright is not a moral system, but a practical one". It was created to essentially force a means to an end, which was encouraging authors to create more works by enabling them to not be ripped of by UNSCRUPULOUS PUBLISHERS STEALING THEIR WORKS. The ultimate irony is that the unscrupulous publishers have now bought enough american (read USA) politicians as to be able to jackboot the rest of the world into enforcing the reverse. The USA knows full well why everyone but their corrupt lick-spittles (past and present) despise them, which is why they passed their internal law that allows them to offensively invade anyone they even think is developing equivalent military technology. Oh, and let's not forget the law they passed that requires them to invade the Hague if an AMERICAN (read USA evil-do-er) is ever indited for a war crime. Oops, I wandered off-topic...
The cheese stands alone...
Yeah, morons...
The cheese stands alone...
Nice
The cheese stands alone...
Hold on, my last few comment have wound up under the wrong parent. How did I manage that? Bugger!
The cheese stands alone...
The law is clear that the service can't be held reliable for the actions of those using it. Google has given the MPAA and others every possible tool to find copyrighted material and to have it removed. They've completed their end of the deal and gone above and beyond.
It is the MPAA who is being sneaky here. They are trying to create precedent by attacking a smaller service which can't defend themselves to the extent that Google can. And then, with precedence in hand, to force google to do their work.