I 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.
They 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.
"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.
Pirates are destroying the movie industry. They are also our best customers. We are suing file-sharing sites out of existence. Also, we'd like to be business partners with them.
For 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.
The 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.
Some of the files that WB removed were uploaded to Hotfile by the copyright owners:
"The software publisher that uploaded the file used Hotfile.com as a means for distribution of its open source software. Warner was not authorized by the software publisher to delete the file"
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.
IANAL, 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.
(1) seems nearly universal, either via full automation or automation plus a cursory manual check that amounts to a rubber stamp. Either way, it seems contrary to the "on penalty of perjury" language in the DMCA and the notices, and I'd love to see someone enforce that.
They probably built the tool specifically so that they could pin the manual review on Warner. Many copyright holders have a reputation for spamming takedown notices without reviewing even the filenames they want taken down, because the initial burden of proof lies on the hosting service.
[+] [-] sjs|14 years ago|reply
Despite all that it's nice to see someone stand up to the content czars.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fleitz|14 years ago|reply
It seems a little unclear from the post.
[+] [-] BonoboBoner|14 years ago|reply
wow... I thought they were focused on removing the 1-click-hosting-sites, but no, those sites are actually means of driving revenues.
[+] [-] sp332|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdz|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dexen|14 years ago|reply
(...) 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.
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
"The software publisher that uploaded the file used Hotfile.com as a means for distribution of its open source software. Warner was not authorized by the software publisher to delete the file"
[+] [-] evilpie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brown9-2|14 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] ZachPruckowski|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sesqu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ianferrel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lurchpop|14 years ago|reply