Warner Bros. Admits To Issuing Bogus Takedowns

An anonymous reader sends this quote from TechDirt: "One of the bizarre side notes to Hollywood's big lawsuit against the cyberlocker Hotfile was a countersuit against Warner Bros. by Hotfile, for using the easy takedown tool that Hotfile had provided, to take down a variety of content that was (a) non-infringing and (b) had nothing to do with Warner Bros. at all (i.e., the company did not hold the copyright on those files). In that case, WB admitted that it filed a bunch of false takedowns, but said it was no big deal because it was all done by a computer. Of course, it then came out that at least one work was taken down by a WB employee, and that employee had done so on purpose, annoyed that JDownloader could help possible infringers download more quickly."

Comments

Oh Okay

[TemperedAlchemist]

So if my computer just happens to download your copyrighted files by algorithm, it's okay because it was all done by a computer.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Re:Oh Okay

[dyingtolive]

I like the idea of randomly generating files that just happen to resemble songs and movies when played back through the proper software.

Re:Oh Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, you misunderstand. This has nothing to do with algorithms or computers or anything. They're arguing that if they file bogus takedowns, it's all okay, because fuck you, that's why. It's all very simple.

Re:Oh Okay

[ggraham412]

If I had any mod points, I'd mod this up +1 Insightful.

Re:Oh Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

> Loopholes are unintentional

Not back when I worked for people who worked for lawyers who worked for tax people who worked for lobbyists who worked for specific, very specific, businesses.

They (lawyers and tax people) _drafted_ the loophole language and the lobbyists made sure some congressperson got that sentence or two into the text before the final vote.

The "unintentional" language is what I hear after the fact by those who didn't notice at the time something slipped in.

What would you call a carefully crafted narrow specific exception to a fee or tax or regulation or law, if not a loophole?

Re:Oh Okay

[Shagg]

Exactly. It's not a loophole, it's a feature.

Re:Oh Okay

[Frobnicator]

The thing is that the studio lawyers are gloating in the legal documents. One of the first rules of the court is: NEVER PISS OFF THE JUDGE.

You need to understand the judge's background. Judge Williams spent her first four years prosecuting money laundering and trying to break up drug cartels whose lawyers did the kind of legal garbage like WB is doing. Then she spent fifteen years defending people who were accused of bank fraud, where she was in charge of defending people, managing a group of about 100 other legal experts and helping them see through corporate and government loopholes.

She has spent almost all of her career trying to stop the corporations and the governments from abusing legal loopholes. This is one of her first cases as a judge, and even though she is going to try to be unbiased, her 30 years of experience in fighting exactly what the movie studios are doing is certainly going to be significant.

This judge knows the tricks. She has spent three decades fighting against exactly this sort of thing. Now she is a judge and it is her first big case.

Now understanding all that background, the judge has already dismissed the core of the lawsuit, the copyright infringement case. She spent 30 years fighting drug cartel financial lawyers and their loopholes, and when she sees the plaintiffs (Disney, 20th Century Fox, Universal, Columbia Pictures, and WB) I'm sure she still reads "cartel".

No, the movie cartel knows they're not going to fare well in the trial. If you read the docket on Justia you will see that they started out with broad accusations and claims and Hotfile was trying to block terms like "piracy" and "theft", and as the judge dismissed large swaths the studios became more and more defensive, and now they are doing everything they can to prevent the jury from learning the truth. Now it is the studios begging for words like "perjury" and "fraud" to not come out in trial.

My guess is that near the end of 2014, after the jury hears everything but before a penalty is assigned, the movie cartel will suddenly settle the lawsuit with undisclosed millions going to Hotfile in order to avoid a punishment.

Perjury?

[gstoddart]

Of course, it then came out that at least one work was taken down by a WB employee, and that employee had done so on purpose, annoyed that JDownloader could help possible infringers download more quickly.

Isn't making a false statement under the DMCA essentially like perjury? And if it is, why isn't someone being charged criminally?

It's gotten to the point where these companies ignore the letter (and intent) of the law at will, and with no penalty.

If your computer system is identifying incorrect stuff, your computer system is faulty. If your humans are illegally issuing take downs for stuff you don't own, that's a criminal act.

And don't tell me it's a civil matter, because the *AAs have gotten enforcement of this ramped up to a federal crime.

Re:Not good at all

[DickBreath]

If WB sends false DMCA takedowns (under penalty of perjury) but it is done by a computer, then it's no big deal.

But if Google returns search results, done by a computer, that might (but not even necessarily) lead to infringing material, it's a national emergency.

Re:The score so far

[gstoddart]

I know, right?

I mean, I could have people over to my house and play music for them -- and I would be denying studio executives their huge compensation and causing the artists to have to eat their own feet in order to survive.

I could be really subversive and have people over to watch movies, and I would be robbing the studios blind.

My god, I need to go to my nearest Copyright Re-education facility and atone for my sins.

All I can say is it's a good thing we've got just and rational laws like the DMCA protecting us from people like me.

And yet most people here likely enjoy the movies

[ggraham412]

Just remember the next time you fork over $12 for a movie ticket, who are you supporting with that money.