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"
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
Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda, but I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
You mean "Google owns several services that allow user-submitted content".
Because this is the current angle the MPAA is attacking competitors from. And we all know the MPAA won't be satisfied until every site has either shut down or been bought by their members.
Can corporations serve jail time or be put to death?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
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.
Because this is the current angle the MPAA is attacking competitors from. And we all know the MPAA won't be satisfied until every site has either shut down or been bought by their members.
Yeah. Have you seen the argument they're using now? It basically goes like this: Sites where the most popular material is infringing are illegal.
Now let's think this through. The MPAA owns most of the copyrights on the most popular material. Which means all they have to do is not license it, and most of the most popular material users post will be infringing. What they are actually arguing, then, is that all user-generated content sites not licensed by the MPAA are illegal. They get a veto over technological innovation because all they have to do is do nothing, and not license their stuff to the new technology, and then the site immediately becomes illegal because the users post it anyway, and the MPAA can sue and destroy the site at will.
It seems pretty obvious why that should not be the law.
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.
[citation needed]
This whole thread is already overrun with AC's, all posting bad stuff about google in sync and their are only 19 posts at present. Please do not respond to them, it is a waste of time and if they had any real interest in posting here they would set up an account and make constructive contributions.
I dont read
Google standing up for our rights is a side effect of Google picking indirect fights to protect their interests before the battle is in their own backyard.
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!"
Your point is valid, unfortunately, when it comes to privacy rights (essentially nonexistent in the US).
I say "unfortunately" because it seems that on most other measures Google is probably the least evil of the large corporations (most are incomparably worse), and tries occasionally to do something we can cheer them for.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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...
Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda, but I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd.
In fact, the Google Amicus brief is quite candid about Google's interest in the case. It's clearly explained in the very first section, right after the tables of contents and authorities, and before any of the brief's arguments.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
More importantly, can corporations get gay married?
"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?
When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
"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...
Exactly right, which doesn't change the fact that this is an argument we want Google to win because if the don't, we will lose along with Google and everybody else.
Let's push that whole analogy a little farther:
One of the arguments against the death penalty being a deterrent is that many of the people it gets applied to are not capable of looking ten years or so down the road and seeing themselves in the position of a condemned killer actually strapped into an electric chair or on a lethal injection table. Our worst criminals tend to be strongly socially stunted and fixated only on immediate gratification and immediate consequences. They severly lack the empathy to put themselves in another's position, whether it's with their victims, or with other killers who have gotten caught and punished.
Sounds like a corporation - relentless focus on a point no father away than the next quarter's profit statement, little or no concern for the long term consequences of their actions... The very act of calling disbandment a corporate death penalty says corporations have the mentality of criminals, and we are hoping we have come up with something severe enough to get them to look past the immediate gratification mode they are in.
Who is John Cabal?
The only reason Google is doing this is because this could directly effect them. If they link to copyrighted content, they could be held liable. This has nothing to do with 'standing up for the rights of geeks everyone' or whatever drivel the summary is espousing.
I agree, the fanboi responses to this are sounding dangerous, if not outright delusional.
This is a business decision, and a smart one on Google's part. The fact that it's good for joe user is a side effect. Nothing more.
http://www.youtube.com/
http://picasa.google.com/
http://plus.google.com/
Three enough?
Ah hell, I'll throw one more in for free: Google Music (specifically, the "locker" feature) - remember, they never got official signoff from the labels that the music locker service was legit and they were okay with it. Labels could still go after Google for that service, though it's not clear that they'd actually win.
You don't think Google is *intensely* interested in the outcome of cases regarding uploads of copyrighted materials to online sharing services, given that they own & operate sites intended for sharing, and which can - easily & trivially - be used to share copyrighted content?
It's cool that Google is advocating for this, but make no mistake: filing this brief is also serving their own interests.
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.
How about our elected representatives? Bwahahahaha...damn, I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
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.
Isn't that why people on Slashdot often speak out in defence of victims of the MPAA's crusade too? Because they think it's unjust, and realise if it carries on then they could be a victim themselves one day?
Or what, you thought it was all goodwilled altruism with no vested interest in supporting a specific stance?
Or were you just trying to troll Google?
Let's be honest, the only reason most people support anything like this is for self-interest, but importantly that doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes an outcome backed for reasons of self-interest is still the right outcome regardless of reasons for backing it.
More importantly, can corporations get gay married?
Technically yes, if you can find a suitable company for Apple to merge with.
Google's interests align with mine about 100x more often then the MPAA or RIAA's do, and this case is no exception. That may not make them less evil, but it does mean that in cases like these, where I feel they are unequivocally correct in their arguments, they'll have my support. In fact, the most evil thing Google's ever done to me is collect my information and use it to sell advertising space, which given the quantity and quality of the software and services I receive in return I fell is well worth it. If only congress would enact legislation that guaranteed my right to a delete button on that information (in case Google's behavior changes in the future) I'd be 100% happy with the arrangement.
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.
Why does one need to be altruistic to not be evil?
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.
That's the point to good legal engineering: laws are written such that greedy self-interest tends to work toward the common good. It's a pity most laws aren't written that way....
--Somebody infect me with a
You have only taken one step in your analysis. I don't believe any of the services that you cite are big money makers for Google and, in fact, have a history of losing money. And it can be argued that Google got into these services, and continue them, out of altruistic principal -- to benefit the users.
I am realistic or cynical enough not to believe Google acts solely from altruistic principal. But I do believe that their motives are far closer to enlightened self-interest than that of the MPAA. The MPAA, in fact, is so singularly focused on their own immediate self interests that they fail to see that, in the long run, they are hurting themselves. Their actions alienate their customers and potential customers, they misunderstand the marketing benefits of widespread, cheap distribution of their product, they advocate laws that could be as easily used against their own interests as those they would use them against, and they act out of fear.
I have certain self-interests of my own to defend. In this I join with other users. And I welcome allies - even/especially corporate allies willing to spend money. And while I don't blindly embrace them without a thought to their motives, those would have too run significantly counter to my own self-interests for me to reject them out of hand.
I recognize that Google is acting out of self-interest, but fail to see any agenda on their part that even approaches the level of evil of that of the MPAA, RIAA and other such entities.
Let's not forget that, in general, Google must necessarily be involved in the matter at hand. You don't just start writing amicus briefs on a whim. If you want to have any impact at all, then it must be an issue that affects you and/or your company.
I'm sure Google could have their lawyers write up briefs and letters on any random topic, but if it is not relevant, why would the judge bother with it?
Oh, look! Google submitted a brief on the produce export restrictions. We'd better read it with the utmost scrutiny...
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
Here's the issue with the privacy thing.
Imagine that a corporation can track and inspect your every email, phone conversation, instant message, and footstep. They correlate it. They know who your friends are, what books you read, everything. That's an incredible amount of information. Even if you assume that the information is only going to be used for relatively harmless purposes, such as advertising. And if you think that's far-fetched, Google is trying pretty hard to get that level of knowledge of you. As are many others. And much of it is behind the scenes. Turn on Ghostery and see how many web sites pop up Google scripts. Even if you don't use any Google product, they are tracking you.
Now, imagine that they collaborate with other companies. What if they could use that knowledge of your every thought to raise prices in real time for the things you need most? Gas when you're about to run out? Use your imagination. Fair dealing is based on the notion of reasonably symmetrical information. If they other side knows everything about you, and you know nothing about them, you're at a disadvantage.
There is a legal right to privacy, which is being eroded. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States.
Now, imagine that an organization knows everything about you. And let's say the government decided it needs some information. So now the government knows everything about you, too. Do you completely trust the government? Are you sure they'll never make a mistake?
Now, imagine that people come to power who do not share your enlightened views on humanity. They think that there's a problem with, oh, left-handed people, people who wear socks with sandals, redheads, people born in February, people not from around here, people with certain political leanings. And let's say they get their hands on the aggregated information about you. Maybe they won't lock you up. But maybe they will. Or maybe they won't lock you up today. If you behave.
Think about all of the organizations, both real and fictional, that want unlimited knowledge of the general public. Not one of them inspires confidence. Think Big Brother. Spanish Inquisition. Total Information Awareness.
In my mind, unlimited personal knowledge aggregation leads straight to political repression. It is, in fact, evil.
And when they aggregate that information and sell it to a background checking company who manages to establish a near-monopoly that flags you as a high-risk employee because a photo that's identified as you that you can't get taken down includes a gun and a liter of vodka?
You know that new privacy policy they have that everyone has been complaining about? It says they can't do anything like that.