Hotfile Smashes MPAA’s Interpretation Of YouTube Ruling

April 19, 2012 by Yonah · Comments Off
Filed under: Announcements & Events, File-Sharing Programs, Networks & Services, Legal P2P News & Issues

No more than two weeks ago the Second Circuit Court of Appeals made an important decision in the lawsuit involving Viacom and Google, regarding massive copyright infringement on the YouTube network. The lawsuit was revived – a victory for Viacom – but what is important now is how future litigants and judges will interpret the ruling.

Not long after the ruling copyright holders and their legal targets heated up on the meaning of what the appellate circuit said in the ruling. Last week, in the middle of MPAA’s battle with Hotfile, the first expressed its own opinion. In response, Hotfile’s attorneys said that the plaintiffs were trying to put a “brave face” on what was said at the Second Circuit.

“If the Second Circuit provided any sign-posts for how copyright law is to be interpreted going forward, one would hardly know it from court filings last week in the Hotfile case,” says a Hollywoodreporter article.

At the moment Hollywood studios are pushing for a summary judgment against Hotfile, calling it more egregious” than Napster, Grokster and Limewire and “indistinguishable” from Megaupload.

In a notice of supplemental authority on Wednesday, the MPAA wanted to draw the attention of a Florida federal judge on the Second Circuit ruling regarding Youtube’s case, making four key points.

“First, the Second Circuit held that service providers can obtain knowledge of infringement that disqualifies them from DMCA safe harbor by being willfully blind to infringement.”

The appellate circuit broadly accepted Google’s interpretation of what safe harbor means. It didn’t accept, however, Viacom’s interpretation of “red flags”, but said that further proof is needed to establish if YouTube knowingly looked away, pointing out to a survey that estimated 75% to 80% or YouTube’s content contains copyrighted material. MPAA considers this is a victory, saying that the Second Circuit determined that while service providers have no freestanding duty to monitor for infringing material, a service provider can be found willfully blind where it was aware of a high probability of the fact in dispute and consciously avoided confirming that fact.”

In addition, the plaintiffs added: “In these circumstances, as the Second Circuit observed, willful blindness ‘may be applied … to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of infringement under the DMCA.”

“Second, the Second Circuit emphasized that Grokster inducement liability is based on ‘purposeful, culpable expression and conduct’ and reaffirmed that such conduct was inconsistent with DMCA safe harbor protection…,” continued the MPAA.

“Third, the Second Circuit rejected defendants’ argument that the higher DMCA standard for ‘ability to control” should apply to common law vicarious infringement as well. In ruling that the DMCA ‘requires something more than the ability to remove or block access to materials posted on a service provider’s website,’…the Second Circuit confirmed that ‘[u]nder the common law vicarious liability standard, [t]he ability to block infringers’ access to a particular environment for any reason whatsoever is evidence of the right and ability to supervise.”

In their ruling, the Second Circuit did not accept Google’s interpretation of copyright law that the “ability to control only pertained to specific knowledge of infringements”. In addition, the Second Circuit disregarded Viacom’s conflation of vicarious liability standards on this topic, saying “something more” was needed.

“Finally, contrary to defendants’ arguments, the Second Circuit reaffirmed that service providers can obtain knowledge of infringing activity that disqualifies them from DMCA safe harbor from sources other than copyright owner takedown notices,” reads MPAA’s final point.

The group added: “Indeed, even in finding that service providers must have knowledge of specific infringing activity to be disqualified from safe harbor under § 512(c)(1)(A), the Second Circuit made clear that the test is an objective one: whether from the facts and circumstances known to the service provider, specific infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person.”

Hotfile, on the other hand, has a different interpretation, claiming that plaintiffs have submitted a filing which “badly distorts the important aspects of the YouTube decision.”

The company’s lawyers say that the Second Circuit rejected the position that “generalized knowledge of infringement on a website suffices to deprive a defendant of safe harbor protection under the DMCA” and that “that disqualifying knowledge or awareness can be proved through statistics.”

As for YouTube “blindness”, Hotfile agrees, but only to specific instances of infringement. Furthermore, regarding the issue of “right and ability to control” Hotfile said that the MPAA has engaged in a “tortured reading” to find support for the idea that DMCA’s safe harbors do not apply to those who possibly maintain inducement liability, and that the group is trying to “camouflage” the fact that the Second Circuit disagreed with them on the “right and ability to control” provision of the DMCA.

“Essentially, when adding up the respective parties’ interpretations of the YouTube decision, the Second Circuit ruling has become a Rorschach inkblot test. The parties each read elements within the decision to support their respective causes. That fact isn’t surprising, but what’s remarkable is how little clarity there is in what the judges at the appellate circuit had to say. The state of disagreement about copyright law is pretty much exactly the same as before. Unfortunately, judges don’t sit immediately for follow-up questions,” concludes Eriq Gardner of the Hollywoodreporter.

Tags: anti-piracy, copyright infringement, hotfile, legal, MPAA, YouTube

Wupload Disables Its File-Sharing Feature

April 13, 2012 by Yonah · Comments Off
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Downloads, File-Sharing Programs, Networks & Services, Legal P2P News & Issues

Since Megaupload was shutdown, many other websites changed their perspective by either ceasing all file-sharing operations, or changing the business model completely. Others, who were less fortunate, were also shutdown, the latest being Library.nu.

Starting with April rumors that the MPAA is planning on closing down other similar websites reached the ears of the public. Among these portals, Alfred Perry – vice president for worldwide content protection at Paramount Pictures – mentioned Wupload – a popular file-host service which, according to Alexa, is one of the top 1000 sites on the web.

As a result, Wupload has disabled all file-sharing capabilities on their portal. As such, files can be downloaded only by the owners from now on.

Furthermore, according to Alexa, Wupload’s daily reach has dropped with 24% in the last week, and with over 40% in the past three months.

Fileserve – found in the top 300 sites (Alexa) – has also decided to close its file-sharing features for all accounts after being mentioned by Alfred Perry. Fileserve’s daily reach also recorded a dropdown – 9% during the week, and almost 40% in the last three months.

(Source: ghacks.net)

This behavior is likely to continue as users are starting to look for alternatives – Dropbox, Box, or SkyDrive. Personally, I have no doubt that this is only the beginning of MPAA’s reign if people will not react, but then again, people alongside with popular services like Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Reddit and so on and so forth have managed once to stop the entertainment industries’ plans to take over the internet. Maybe it’s time to go into the ring again.

Tags: anti-piracy, copyright, copyright infringement, file sharing sites, file-sharing, legal, MPAA

Anti-Piracy Laws Will Increase The Revenues Of Cyberlockers And VPNs

April 9, 2012 by Yonah · Comments Off
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Entertainment Industry, File-Sharing Programs, Networks & Services, Legal P2P News & Issues

photocredit: myce.com

In collaboration with all major US ISPs, the MPAA and RIAA will start to roll out a program to warn and incriminate copyright infringers. But no cause is without effect; as such cyberlockers and VPNs are going to experience a significant increase in revenues.

This summer copyright holders, helped by ISPs, will start chasing down pirates. It’s not something new (they were already doing that), but this time a formalized process bearing the name of “copyright alerts” (http://www.copyrightinformation.org/alerts) will exist. It’s a graduated response system which will notify people if they’re accounts are used of illegal downloading. Unlike the three-strikes system, this one has six steps; after six warnings ISPs are bound to apply several measures, including the disconnection of that account for a certain period of time.

While some are not yet aware of the danger and may download without the use of a proxy server or VPN, others are already taking precautions. Therefore, the effectiveness of the system is not guaranteed.

For example, a recent survey in France – where Hadopi is already in place – shows that only 4% of file-sharers stopped downloading infringed data, while most of them are using proxies and VPNs to stay anonymous.

Speaking to several VPN owners TorrentFreak found out that their user-base recorded a huge increase in numbers in the past few years – some of them are directly linked to news about copyright enforcement efforts. As the six-strikes system is being implemented, there will be no surprise if VPN and proxy services are going to get their pockets filled by file-sharers.

But they’re not the only ones to profit from it. Cyberlockers will also record an increase in revenues, since they’ve already outgrown some of the most popular torrent sites. That is mostly because the anti-piracy law is targeting only peer-to-peer file-sharing. For example, it’s a known fact that sites like 4Shared, RapidShare, and Hotfile are used to share copyrighted materials.

In a nutshell, pirates will always prefer VPNs and proxies, even if that requires the least amount of investment – but what’s money compared to a copyright lawsuit or prison?

Six-strikes will indeed take its toll, but the predictions indicate that the percentage of those who will completely stop from downloading illegal materials is not significant.

Tags: anti-piracy, copyright, file sharing sites, file-sharing, ISPs, legal, MPAA, riaa

Pirates And Their New Foe: The Center for Copyright Information

April 4, 2012 by Yonah · Comments Off
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Entertainment Industry, Legal P2P News & Issues

Major film studios and music companies are preparing to launch a new weapon against piracy, the Center for Copyright Information. Some of US’ largest ISPs will also join the fight.

A report by Greg Sandoval at Cnet.com is informing that some of United States’ most important internet providers, among whom AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, in collaboration with the entertainment industry will put into motion the Center for Copyright Information in order to “assist in the effort to combat online infringement.”

Heading the CCI is Jill Lesser, managing director of lobbying and public policy firm The Glover Park Group, and also a member of the board at the Center for Democracy and Technology – a non-profit group that fights for the freedom of speech on the internet.

According to her biography Jill has concentrated her efforts on “copyright, consumer protection, and telecommunications policy issues for clients in the media industry.”

CCI’s task, among others, is to educate the public about copyright laws and what happens if you break them. The administrators’ job will be to evaluate the viability of mitigation measures, the ability of entertainment groups to identify pirates, and to promote the graduate response program to non-participating ISPs. Antipiracy experts claim that the graduated response system is an important tool to stop piracy, and that ISPs are the frontline of the Internet. The intention of launching CCI was first announced last July by the MPAA and the RIAA.

Entertainment industry insiders said that the center will also try to build a communication bridge between ISPs and the entertainment companies. However, ISPs are still worried about their customers’ rights.

As such, Lesser’s job will now be to keep peace between ISPs and the entertainment groups; whether this strategy will work or not remains to be seen.

Tags: copyright, file-sharing, ISPs, legal, MPAA, riaa

Google Fights For Your Rights To Share

March 23, 2012 by Yonah · Comments Off
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Downloads

Following accusation that Hotfile is promoting piracy, Google is now trying to intervene and protect the locker service from Hollywood’s wrath.

The previous month Google filed a brief at Florida’s federal court, speaking for Hotfile. The MPAA is claiming that Hotfile is harboring pirates and their infringing data. In their struggle to curb piracy, record and movie companies are interfering with Web companies and their interests, creating issues instead of solving problems.

In 2011 the Stop Online Piracy Act started a never before seen reaction from both web companies, and people as well. Google, Yahoo, Facebook and many other great companies started a campaign to speak-out against SOPA, eventually forcing authorities and politicians to shelf the legislation. Although web companies are not pro-piracy, they have the will to defend Internet’s freedom of expression.

In Hotfile’s defense Google invokes the Digital Millennium Act (DMCA), the piece of legislation that has been providing safe harbor for websites like Youtube, Facebook and Wikipedia since it was voted and passed in October 1998 by US’ Senate, and signed by then president of all Americans Bill Clinton.

In the brief Google states that safe harbors “have helped facilitate the development of the Internet as a robust and revolutionary platform for free expression, creativity, and economic opportunity,” and its intentions are to remain as such.

On the other side, the MPPA highlights the fact that Hotfile’s success is a clear statement that it facilitates piracy.

“In less than two years, Hotfile has become one of the 100 most trafficked sites in the world…That is a direct result of the massive digital theft that Hotfile promotes,” said the MPAA.

But the movie studios are not as innocent as they want us to believe. Critics argue that Hollywood’s studios have been promoting piracy themselves (at least passively) by adopting the practice of “windowing”, overwhelming the public with their massive production; that, combined with poor marketing, and the unwillingness to adjust their prices to the economy of those less fortunate European countries leave the viewer with two options: either wait for the release or pirate it.

Another explanation for Hotfile’s predicament would be UltraViolet, a digital storage locker belonging to several big studios, a place where users can store their purchased movies – the threat is obvious.

“It is not the job of Hotfile, or any internet company to affirmatively monitor their services for possible infringement,” said Google.

The big industries, however, managed to make few allies, such as ISPs willing (more or less) to help them. A good example would be US’ major internet providers Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner (among others) to implement a graduate response system, commonly known as the three-strikes system.

While online piracy remains a big problem for the creative (a bit of an understatement to call them creative) industries, the internet organism fights for its survival in an environment that was supposed to be (right from the start) free and fun to be part of.

Tags: copyright, file sharing sites, file-sharing, google, legal, MPAA