Hollywood Studios To Collect $80 Million Damages From Hotfile

[Karloff]

Hollywood Studios To Collect $80 Million Damages From Hotfile

Hotfile's safe harbor defense collapsed, and after that there was no hope.

If you're one of the many who gets their movies from Hotfile, you may have noticed that the site's shut down. The file locker has closed its virtual doors after losing a major legal battle with the MPAA. Hotfile has settled rather than endure a legal rout, and will pay an $80 million fine to Hollywood. It has also been ordered to cease operations until it implements copyright filtering technologies.

Hotfile relied on the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, arguing that it was all right so long as it removed offending materials when notified of a problem. However it failed to demonstrate that it had done anything substantial to prevent infringement. Judge Kathleen Williams described the extent of infringement as "staggering" but, despite receiving 8 million infringement notices for 5 million users, Hotfile had only terminated the accounts of 43 by the time the lawsuit was filed.

Hotfile launched in 2009 and has 5.3 million reigistered users, which - given the estimated 90.2% infringing or highly infringing Hotfile downloads made each day [http://ia600408.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.373206/gov.uscourts.flsd.373206.534.0.pdf] - suggests that the vast majority of those users are involved in copyright infringement.

Hotfile works by 'hiding' its files in plain sight, providing a link with no file name or description. It's up to the user to share links and titles, but each file is unsecured, available to anyone with a net connection. A file can be downloaded multiple times, with no restriction. The MPAA, in papers filed prior to the trial, has described it as "indistinguishable" from Megaupload. Kim Dotcom [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120056-Judge-Denies-Megauploads-Motion-to-Dismiss] has yet to have his extradition case dealt with.

"This judgment by the court is another important step toward protecting an Internet that works for everyone," says the MPAA's Chris Dodd. "Sites like Hotfile that illegally profit off of the creativity and hard work of others do a serious disservice to audiences, who deserve high-quality, legitimate viewing experiences online."

Source: Guardian [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/04/hotfile-hollywood-filesharing-damages-mpaa]


Permalink

 

[Elate]

The day they give us a way to watch movies/shows/etc, with ease, the day this stops being a problem. At least here in the UK, services like Netflix are shockingly poor, last time I checked their library I think they had one season of Star Trek Voyager (or some other similarly oldish sci-fi show) and this was in 2012.

The U.S is better, but until they start putting out films on release, and shows as they're aired, this is going to continue, because people want entertainment immediately, and if the service provided by pirates is better than that you have to pay for, people are going to pick the one that's free.

On the topic of Hotfile, trying to block sites like this is like trying to fight a hydra, there are already about twelve other sites people can use that come to mind immediately, on top of that there are torrents, on top of that there's still people in the street that peddle ripped DvDs.

 

[Genocidicles]

Provide a better service than pirates and most people will stop pirating.

As it stands, if you pirate something you get it:

Free
Without ads
Shareable with friends
Without an anti piracy warning
DRM Free

And you can get it as soon as it's released to the cinema instead of having to wait a few months after it's been out for it to be released on DVD (Why the fuck are they still making us wait for this bullshit?), and it's available world wide.

Plus you can keep it forever.

If they only thing I had to put up was paying a bit of cash, I'd see no problem with buying a movie.

 

[Buizel91]

The day they give us a way to watch movies/shows/etc, with ease, the day this stops being a problem. At least here in the UK, services like Netflix are shockingly poor, last time I checked their library I think they had one season of Star Trek Voyager (or some other similarly oldish sci-fi show) and this was in 2012.

The U.S is better, but until they start putting out films on release, and shows as they're aired, this is going to continue, because people want entertainment immediately, and if the service provided by pirates is better than that you have to pay for, people are going to pick the one that's free.

I have changed my DNS server on my 360, so I have the American Netflix, Arrow and Supernatural FTW! Also, I seem to get american DLC to, which is nice xD

OT: Never even heard of HotFile, but they might as well of not done anything, taking down one site isn't going to help at all, there are thousands of others.

 

[Strazdas]

So if i were to post a link to a pirated game as a comment right here, that would be grounds to shut down escapist?
Yeah, thats some sick laws you got there.
In fact, have you taken significant action to reduce the amount of copyright avatars on here? no? well i guess your next then. Because thats how stupid copyright laws are.

ALso its funny how they claim damages when no damages could exist becuase people who pirate in most cases cannot even legally obtain the item if they wanted to (as in - they are not being sold). Actually, does anyone know a legal digital download website where i can buy movies and download them legally[footnote]has to have at least decent library[/footnote]? Because i sure dont.
So since there is absolutely no way to get the product otherwise, even if noone pirated you would still be earning a round 0 from them, so where are the damages coming from?

capcha: find answer?
no, no i did not.

 

[Buizel91]

Provide a better service than pirates and most people will stop pirating.

As it stands, if you pirate something you get it:

Free
Without ads
Shareable with friends
Without an anti piracy warning
DRM Free

And you can get it as soon as it's released to the cinema instead of having to wait a few months after it's been out for it to be released on DVD (Why the fuck are they still making us wait for this bullshit?), and it's available world wide.

Plus you can keep it forever.

If they only thing I had to put up was paying a bit of cash, I'd see no problem with buying a movie.

Recording from a cinema is poor quality though, i'd rather pay for Netflix and get the occasional DVD than watch a film only to find out half way through someone has stood up to go to the toilet :')

 

[VanQ]

If these Hollywood companies spent half the money they waste on all these legal fees then they'd probably be able to deliver a more reliable, high quality service that would entice the pirates to use.

In stead they create shoddy systems that benefit only the producers and spam users with ads and anti-piracy warnings treating their few paying customers like potential thieves.

It's really no wonder people turn to piracy when they're suspected of being one by default. If you're gonna do the time, might as well do the crime.

 

[Albino Boo]

So if i were to post a link to a pirated game as a comment right here, that would be grounds to shut down escapist?
Yeah, thats some sick laws you got there.
In fact, have you taken significant action to reduce the amount of copyright avatars on here? no? well i guess your next then. Because thats how stupid copyright laws are.

ALso its funny how they claim damages when no damages could exist becuase people who pirate in most cases cannot even legally obtain the item if they wanted to (as in - they are not being sold). Actually, does anyone know a legal digital download website where i can buy movies and download them legally[footnote]has to have at least decent library[/footnote]? Because i sure dont.
So since there is absolutely no way to get the product otherwise, even if noone pirated you would still be earning a round 0 from them, so where are the damages coming from?

capcha: find answer?
no, no i did not.

No it would not be a grounds for shutting down the escapists. A judge a capable of making a distinction between a site that has 1.6 complaints per user and has banned 43 accounts, out 5 of million users and a site that takes clear action against piracy. Hotfile has not demonstrated a reasonable willingness to deal with complaints which is why the site has had damages awarded against it. The Escapist has a clear policy on links to piracy and enforces it rigorously.


Just because you don't have access to something why do you think that entitles you to pirate it. If they stop selling a model of car that does not give you the right to take one.

 

[Akisa]

Provide a better service than pirates and most people will stop pirating.

As it stands, if you pirate something you get it:

Free
Without ads
Shareable with friends
Without an anti piracy warning
DRM Free

And you can get it as soon as it's released to the cinema instead of having to wait a few months after it's been out for it to be released on DVD (Why the fuck are they still making us wait for this bullshit?), and it's available world wide.

Plus you can keep it forever.

If they only thing I had to put up was paying a bit of cash, I'd see no problem with buying a movie.

Recording from a cinema is poor quality though, i'd rather pay for Netflix and get the occasional DVD than watch a film only to find out half way through someone has stood up to go to the toilet :')

Except you can get the file for the projector of the theater or at least compressed version of it.

 

[Genocidicles]

Just because you don't have access to something why do you think that entitles you to pirate it. If they stop selling a model of car that does not give you the right to take one.

Because why the hell can't they make it available to everyone? This isn't like making an old car where it takes up space on a production line that could be used for newer cars.

It's literally data, and they could sell it on iTunes or Amazon or whatever (worldwide) at no cost of their own. In fact they'd make more money than just holding it back like the cunts they are.

 

[Albino Boo]

Just because you don't have access to something why do you think that entitles you to pirate it. If they stop selling a model of car that does not give you the right to take one.

Because why the hell can't they make it available to everyone? This isn't like making an old car where it takes up space on a production line that could be used for newer cars.

It's literally data, and they could sell it on iTunes or Amazon or whatever (worldwide) at no cost of their own. In fact they'd make more money than just holding it back like the cunts they are.

The people that worked on the data are entitled to royalties, its not free. If they give the data away they still have to pay the fee per copy. Even that were not the case why should anyone have to give something away for free? Its the owners choice about what they do with it, not yours. Its a piece of property and the owners have the right to use it as they see fit within the law. Its no different from a car or house in that respect. They paid for it, they get to chose.

 

[Genocidicles]

The people that worked on the data are entitled to royalties, its not free. If they give the data away they still have to pay the fee per copy. Even that were not the case why should anyone have to give something away for free? Its the owners choice about what they do with it, not yours. Its a piece of property and the owners have the right to use it as they see fit within the law. Its no different from a car or house in that respect. They paid for it, they get to chose.

Who said anything about giving it away for free? If they sell it on Amazon they're still making money from it, only Amazon gets a cut of the action.

 

[Albino Boo]

The people that worked on the data are entitled to royalties, its not free. If they give the data away they still have to pay the fee per copy. Even that were not the case why should anyone have to give something away for free? Its the owners choice about what they do with it, not yours. Its a piece of property and the owners have the right to use it as they see fit within the law. Its no different from a car or house in that respect. They paid for it, they get to chose.

Who said anything about giving it away for free? If they sell it on Amazon they're still making money from it, only Amazon gets a cut of the action.

Why should they if they don't want to? I chose not to sell my house, no one questions me. Its their right to chose what to do with the things they own.

Doesn't matter where they sell it, they still have to pay royalties. This becomes difficult with older material because you have to trace down the eastes of people that have died. Unless something is considered a classic, the costs outway the returns. You will bother if its 1950s Cary Grant movie but not if its 1950s boxing pic with a z lister in the lead. Film prints need clearing up and digitizing. All of which cost money. You can bet your bottom dollar of there was a profit to made they would release things.

 

[slacker2]

Just because you don't have access to something why do you think that entitles you to pirate it. If they stop selling a model of car that does not give you the right to take one.

[...]Its no different from a car or house in that respect. They paid for it, they get to chose.

Why should they if they don't want to? I chose not to sell my house, no one questions me. Its their right to chose what to do with the things they own.

These ... are parody posts, aren't they? I mean they have to be, right?

Come ooon, you're just trying to spoof that stupid ''you wouldn't download a car'' commercial, aren'tcha?

 

[Ninmecu]

Why should they if they don't want to? I chose not to sell my house, no one questions me. Its their right to chose what to do with the things they own.

That's a bit like having your cake and eating it too. You can't complain on one hand that people aren't giving you their money if with your other hand you're taking the means to match todays changing landscape and demand for product distribution. I'll grant you the royalties fee, but if we're going down that road, FUCK DISNEY. Why? For pushing Copyright laws past the 10 year mark into near infinity.

On an unrelated note. Can someone tell me what "Vul in: Korting Bij Marriot?" is? My Captcha is speaking foreign to me in a language I can't even pretend to understand.

Edit: 10 captchas later trying to have me decipher said language I get one that says "Winter is coming" NO, winter is HERE. Stupid non-Canadian Captcha.(Followed by another 10 captcha in said language, followed by "fezes are cool" to which i replied, No they aren't.(And got it wrong again.)

 

[Albino Boo]

Why should they if they don't want to? I chose not to sell my house, no one questions me. Its their right to chose what to do with the things they own.

That's a bit like having your cake and eating it too. You can't complain on one hand that people aren't giving you their money if with your other hand you're taking the means to match todays changing landscape and demand for product distribution. I'll grant you the royalties fee, but if we're going down that road, FUCK DISNEY. Why? For pushing Copyright laws past the 10 year mark into near infinity.

On an unrelated note. Can someone tell me what "Vul in: Korting Bij Marriot?" is? My Captcha is speaking foreign to me in a language I can't even pretend to understand.

Edit: 10 captchas later trying to have me decipher said language I get one that says "Winter is coming" NO, winter is HERE. Stupid non-Canadian Captcha.(Followed by another 10 captcha in said language, followed by "fezes are cool" to which i replied, No they aren't.(And got it wrong again.)

Copyright has been between 75-100 years since its inception. Royalties are payments made by disney to the people that appear in and write the music and scripts for the film. I suggest you clam down, that way you might learn something.

 

[chadachada123]

Why should they if they don't want to? I chose not to sell my house, no one questions me. Its their right to chose what to do with the things they own.

That's a bit like having your cake and eating it too. You can't complain on one hand that people aren't giving you their money if with your other hand you're taking the means to match todays changing landscape and demand for product distribution. I'll grant you the royalties fee, but if we're going down that road, FUCK DISNEY. Why? For pushing Copyright laws past the 10 year mark into near infinity.

On an unrelated note. Can someone tell me what "Vul in: Korting Bij Marriot?" is? My Captcha is speaking foreign to me in a language I can't even pretend to understand.

Edit: 10 captchas later trying to have me decipher said language I get one that says "Winter is coming" NO, winter is HERE. Stupid non-Canadian Captcha.(Followed by another 10 captcha in said language, followed by "fezes are cool" to which i replied, No they aren't.(And got it wrong again.)

Copyright has been between 75-100 years since its inception. Royalties are payments made by disney to the people that appear in and write the music and scripts for the film. I suggest you clam down, that way you might learn something.

From Wikipedia:

The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, he could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others.

So, yeah, you're definitely wrong about it being 75-100 years since its inception.

Also:

To have copyright extend past the death of the copyright holder (the current legal standard being the death of the copyright holder plus a shit ton of years) is completely asinine to begin with.

 

[Flames66]

The people that worked on the data are entitled to royalties, its not free. If they give the data away they still have to pay the fee per copy. Even that were not the case why should anyone have to give something away for free? Its the owners choice about what they do with it, not yours. Its a piece of property and the owners have the right to use it as they see fit within the law. Its no different from a car or house in that respect. They paid for it, they get to chose.

Who said anything about giving it away for free? If they sell it on Amazon they're still making money from it, only Amazon gets a cut of the action.

Why should they if they don't want to? I chose not to sell my house, no one questions me. Its their right to chose what to do with the things they own.

Doesn't matter where they sell it, they still have to pay royalties. This becomes difficult with older material because you have to trace down the eastes of people that have died. Unless something is considered a classic, the costs outway the returns. You will bother if its 1950s Cary Grant movie but not if its 1950s boxing pic with a z lister in the lead. Film prints need clearing up and digitizing. All of which cost money. You can bet your bottom dollar of there was a profit to made they would release things.

True, but you can't make infinite copies of your house at 0 cost.

OT: I agree with the first few posters. Provide a better service than the pirates and you will get dem customers.

 

[Albino Boo]

Why should they if they don't want to? I chose not to sell my house, no one questions me. Its their right to chose what to do with the things they own.

That's a bit like having your cake and eating it too. You can't complain on one hand that people aren't giving you their money if with your other hand you're taking the means to match todays changing landscape and demand for product distribution. I'll grant you the royalties fee, but if we're going down that road, FUCK DISNEY. Why? For pushing Copyright laws past the 10 year mark into near infinity.

On an unrelated note. Can someone tell me what "Vul in: Korting Bij Marriot?" is? My Captcha is speaking foreign to me in a language I can't even pretend to understand.

Edit: 10 captchas later trying to have me decipher said language I get one that says "Winter is coming" NO, winter is HERE. Stupid non-Canadian Captcha.(Followed by another 10 captcha in said language, followed by "fezes are cool" to which i replied, No they aren't.(And got it wrong again.)

Copyright has been between 75-100 years since its inception. Royalties are payments made by disney to the people that appear in and write the music and scripts for the film. I suggest you clam down, that way you might learn something.

From Wikipedia:

The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, he could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others.

So, yeah, you're definitely wrong about it being 75-100 years since its inception.

Also:

To have copyright extend past the death of the copyright holder (the current legal standard being the death of the copyright holder plus a shit ton of years) is completely asinine to begin with.

Look what happens when you stop swearing and look things up. Where on your list has copyright been 10 years? Anyway I was not referring to the US but the UK where it has been 100-75 years for ages. Most of europe follows the same standard, the US just increased its laws with pretty much what the rest of the world has been using anyway.

So if you build a house rent it out your family can continue getting money from it after your death but if write a book your family gets nothing? Why is creative works less inheritable than physical works?

 

[Albino Boo]

True, but you can't make infinite copies of your house at 0 cost.

OT: I agree with the first few posters. Provide a better service than the pirates and you will get dem customers.

Its not zero cost for each copy sold, the film company will have to pay royalties to 3rd parties. If the film was based on a book, the author is entitled to money. Any music used, the publisher is entitled to money for each copy sold. Depending on the contract the actors could also be entitled to money. For the last 50 years or so producers, directors and lead cast members tend to be on a percentage, all them have to be paid. Which means hours of expensive lawyers digging around in files and hoping that after 50 or even 70 years the contracts are still on file. If they have died then you have to trace the heirs and pay them the money. So its not zero cost by any definition.