11 ms·
File Hosting Service Hotfile Sues Warner Bros. For Copyright Fraud and Abuse
- BonoboBoner 15y ago"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." wow... I thought they were focused on removing the 1-click-hosting-sites, but no, those sites are actually means of driving revenues.
- sdz 15y agoFor 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," by Ty M. Bollinger. Another title deleted by Warner was "The Box that Saved Britain," a production of the BBC, not Warner. This is really bizarre. Hotfile might technically be right in suing Warner Bros. for pulling content they don't own the rights to, but it's not as if Hotfile had a legitimate claim to having those files on its servers. Those files are copyrighted by someone, and surely the real rights holders would want their intellectual property removed from Hotfile if they knew about it. And now that Hotfile admits knowledge of these files, aren't they compelled to remove them anyway? [edit] Perhaps I should have said ironic instead of bizarre. I don't disagree that there's a legal case here.
- evilpie 15y agoOnly because it's not legal anyway, doesn't mean that Warner can claim ownership of this content.
- pyre 15y agoBut Warner already removed the files, so Hotfile doesn't have to remove them.
- dexen 15y agoThe suit alleges fraud and abuse, not copyright infringement. I.e., Hotfile bemoans WB filed fraudlent takedown notices on content it did not own, harming the company and their users. If you asked me, this is theft of the copyright itself, as opposed to `plain' copyright infringement. (...) and surely the real rights holders would want their intellectual property removed from Hotfile if they knew about it. You don't know if the uploader of the books has license to publish them, and you cannot act under assumption they lack one.
- sdz 15y agoFair enough, the real rights owner may have uploaded the books and videos themselves. I just think there's some irony here that Hotfile suddenly cares about copyright.
- pyre 15y agoThen you must also find irony in Warner's actions. They care so much about copyright and the law, but they can't even follow the rules.
- dspillett 15y agoThey care about protecting their own content and using the law to do so where possible - you can not logically infer from that fact that they care about copyright or the law more generally.
- 15y ago
- sjs 15y agoI generally despise hosting services, with their pages crammed full of ads, obnoxious waiting times, and constant attempts to get you to pay them that all just scream "we hate every last damn one of you so much that we're going to make it as annoying as possible for you to get this file". Despite all that it's nice to see someone stand up to the content czars.
- peterwwillis 15y agoThey make it that annoying so you'll pay for a premium account that removes all the annoying crap (and improves speed, removes download caps). And anyway, they provide a valuable service: illegal file sharing using only Google and HTTP. I've long since abandoned networks like gnutella, edonkey, bittorrent, etc in favor of a good blog search engine and file-downloading sites. Similarly there's hundreds of streaming video sites to watch TV series on without the need to download. I can ignore an ad here or there for the convenience of pirating media from any web browser in the world.
- JonnieCache 15y agoprotip: VLC can play incomplete files.
- Farow 15y agoAs does any decent media player.
- wmf 15y agoI can understand non-commercial piracy, but these download sites are evil parasites. It's a clever business model, though.
- peterwwillis 15y agoBandwidth costs money. Hosting costs money. They can't just let hundreds of thousands of people download gigabytes at a time at >5Mbps for free. Peer to peer networks don't have huge resource drains on anything but the bandwidth of ISPs.
- lurchpop 15y agoman bites dog
- brown9-2 15y agoTwo things seem odd about this: 1. It was an automated script from Warner Bros responsible for the abuse of the taketown tool and filing requests for content they don't hold the copyright to. 2. The taketown tool built by Hotfile doesn't require any sort of manual review from any human before the file is taken down. edit: by "odd" I mean "unexpected"
- ianferrel 15y ago#2 doesn't seem surprising. I'm sure they don't want to spend the manpower on it. Better to just take it down and let the original uploader re-up it.
- JoshTriplett 15y agoExcept that DMCA notices include language like this: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, of the copyright(s) that is(are) allegedly infringed by the aforementioned content." That doesn't include any exceptions for "my automated script screwed up" or "we didn't check carefully enough", nor should it.
- ianferrel 15y agoUh... those are for the party making the infringement claim. Point #2 was about Hotfile, the party receiving the claim. I was saying that it doesn't seem surprising that they didn't bother to check the incoming claims very carefully before pulling the content down.
- JoshTriplett 15y agoI was talking about point 1.
- ZachPruckowski 15y agoIANAL, but (2) seems pretty standard in terms of DMCA compliance. As a service provider hoping to remain in the "safe harbor", you generally fulfill all takedown requests and you leave contesting the takedowns on the grounds of error or fair use or whatever to the guy whose video got taken down. Applying editorial discretion or undue delay to takedown requests involves taking on some level of legal risk. So the smart thing to do is automate them. It screws over your legit uploaders if they get DMCA'd, but most companies find that better than picking expensive legal fights.