Hollywood Studios To Collect $80 Million Damages From Hotfile

[Eldritch Warlord]

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.

Sure:

Xbox Video [http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/video]
Amazon Instant Video [www.amazon.com/Instant-Video/b?ie=UTF8&node=2858778011]

Of course what counts as a "decent library" is subjective, and I'm not really familiar with what they offer in Lithuania. I think they're pretty good though.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Way to protect the hard work of other people!

Now how about you turn your attention to rectifying that situation between Fox's Glee and Jonathan Coulton?

Oh, wait, copyright law protects the rights of the party who usurped Content without crediting, recompensing, or even informing the creator of said content, all because the sort of cover license used by the original creator had no provisions, disregarding the fact that the acoustic content created for the cover was entirely original, and in no way similar to the musical accompaniment of the original artist that Fox DID pay. My mistake!

-_-

 

[Yopaz]

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

Sure:

Xbox Video [http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/video]
Amazon Instant Video [www.amazon.com/Instant-Video/b?ie=UTF8&node=2858778011]

Of course what counts as a "decent library" is subjective, and I'm not really familiar with what they offer in Lithuania. I think they're pretty good though.

Amazon's digital services are VERY limited when it comes to region restriction. This is due to copyright laws preventing them from doing so.

OT: Piracy will always come out on top as long as companies keep us form getting content. I bought the DVD for the series Welcome To the NHK and it turned out it was actually region locked to such a degree that my DVD player which plays American DVDs couldn't play it. It even came with the message that it was illegal for me to watch it. I had to change my region settings and watch it on my computer in order to watch it. That was a huge disappointment to me.

Netflix is a decent service... if you're American, but again copyright laws prevent it from being accessed outside of America and while it has finally come to Europe not all the countries have access and it got nowhere near the same amount of content.

They need to either accept that some piracy will exist or make an effort to compete with it.

 

[Dark Knifer]

I'd just like a service with shows I like on it at a reasonable time.

Annoyingly, being Australian, dvds are the easiest way for me to watch things legally as foxtel is just too much money for not enough content. There is Itunes but I did not like how I can't even make an apple account without giving it my credit card details.

Even the xbox wasn't that bad.

 

[A BigCup of Tea]

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.

ooo can you tell me how to change my dns server on xbox so i can get american netflix?

OT: agreed with pretty much everyone above, if you provide a better service than pirates then people will stop!

 

[unstabLized]

"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."

I'm sorry, but every time someone says something like that, I just get the urge to knock them out. I'm not violent or anything, but something like that just makes my skin crawl. All the "Internet that works for everyone" and "Safe internet" is just... Ugh. Why do these people not get the fact that the whole point of the internet is it being filter free, and all the "harm" you try to remove of it just backfires on you? It never works, and all it does is piss people off, yet pricks over at places like the MPAA keep trying to shove it down our throats.

 

[FalloutJack]

This looks like a job for Dara O'Briain!


And of course, the Neil Gaiman Defense.


Face it, Hollywood. You know as well as I do IT WILL NEVER END unless you give it a reason to stop.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

With regard to Hotfile, while I hate to say it I think the argument is fairly clear cut in favour of Hollywood in this instance. The facts are that Hotfile made a lot of money, predominantly by facilitating sharing *stuff* that isn't theirs to profit from and apparently made little effort to combat this. It brings to mind the rather alarming statistic that up to 25% of Nigeria's entire GDP comes from fraud/scams and as such, is not something the government wishes to crack down on.

If I created an entertainment product which other people distributed and profited from, I would feel cheated.

---------------------------

With regard to piracy, I do agree that the problem would be significantly lessened by offering better services to match what today's audiences expect. The music industry took their time but finally jumped onto the online distribution bandwagon and are now profiting (though it has meant a significant rejig of the financial model). I can speak on this topic in confidence and greater detail since meeting and listening to the CEO of Universal Music UK himself talk about this stuff.

It's very easy to find things online and Steam revolutionised gaming for many because it is easier than piracy. I can legally own and play any game in their library in approximately 10 mouse clicks. I can play them on any computer I wish, on as many computers as I wish and download at the speed limit of my connection any time I choose. I don't have to mess with cracks but can still mod my games to my heart's content. The service is better, faster, more convenient and legal and that's why it's so popular. I could easily find the things I want for free, but prefer Steam for all the reasons mentioned, hence my library is one of, if not the largest of anyone else on the Escapist.

With films/tv however, rights and what have you are the biggest issue...this also affects eBook publishing and is also why they get pirated so much. Both industries need to wake up and realise that different regional release dates, borders and what not are a thing of the past. The Internet doesn't respect them and barely acknowledges them. The sooner the filmmakers and book publishers realise the old model is outdated and start offering worldwide services, the sooner they'll start to profit from the piracy that likely claims any income they might've gotten in the absence of such a service.

To give a personal example, Futurama is my favourite TV show bar none. I'm sad that it's gone, likely for good but while it was on and aired in the US (on Comedy Central) I was enjoying it. However I had to do so through questionable means. Since I'm in the UK and the episodes weren't aired at the same time (I still don't know if they've been aired here) the ONLY way I had to watch them shortly after they were aired Stateside was with file sharing. I would have thrown money Fry-style at whoever could give me a high quality, reliable, unrestricted method for watching them legally (and without ads) but there was no such system and I can say unreservedly that there was absolutely zero chance of me waiting for it to air here. It wasn't an option, not even on the table. I was going to watch them the minute I was able by whichever method was available to me. Given the choice, I would CHOOSE to throw money at the content creators for my favourite show to demonstrate my support, reward them for entertaining me and reflect how much I adore their work. However, broadcast rights, international dates and similar nonsense meant no system available by which I could do so.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I wanted a good streaming service for ages, then i got Netflix and now i kinda realize that i prefer dvds. I don't like streaming and renting, i like to own it so that i can make sure that the movie is always available to me. Now i only watch movies on dvd and in the cinema and it works perfectly for my needs, luckily dvds are very cheap.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

I am not aware of any laws that make distinctions between the amount of pirated content on the site being "bad enough" and not enough to take legal action. Last time i heard any infringement is infringement even if its just 1 user.
UN declaration of human rights states that humans have right to culture and information. If there is no legal way to obtain it then it is a problem. your example is loaded and misconstructed. I am not taking anything if im pirating something, i would be copying the thing. If they stop selling a model of a car in my country and i would look at one driving around and build my own that would be well within my legal rights.

Capcha: make it so
no, capcha, im nto going to build a car.

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

If you know where one can get one good for you. From at least what public and semi-private side of pirates have acess to this is extremely rare occasion.

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.

Sure:

Xbox Video [http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/video]
Amazon Instant Video [www.amazon.com/Instant-Video/b?ie=UTF8&node=2858778011]

Of course what counts as a "decent library" is subjective, and I'm not really familiar with what they offer in Lithuania. I think they're pretty good though.

Couple things:
First Xbox.
God thats obnoxiuos website.
Xbox Live, and Xbox Video with it is not available in my country. At all. Considering the thing is over the internet this is unacceptable. there are no extra costs allowing all world to connect (other than load, but you want more users if your running a business).
I didnt knew you could download things from Xbox Video, i thought it was streaming service.

Amazon video.
Link is broken.
Amazon Instant video is limited to US. Even Netflix is better than this, but that one is still not available here (technically, VPN is your friend), and even then outside of US Netflix collection is dreadful.
From what i read on the site it is a streaming and DVD rental service, so no download.

So no, neither of those work for multiple reasons.

I repeat. Actually, does anyone know a legal digital download website where i can buy movies and download them legally.

 

[Neyon]

Let me watch your tv shows online, maybe with ads before, no matter where I am, right after the show is first broadcast, for free and I won't pirate it. I will give you my ad revenue happily. Same goes for movies, perhaps with longer ads up front, or even a small fee for watching it online, especially if it was only just released in cinemas.

I do want to support the creators of shows I like, but I don't have another option unless I want to wait several months & sign up to some cable service or buy the dvd.

 

[Albino Boo]

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.

I am not aware of any laws that make distinctions between the amount of pirated content on the site being "bad enough" and not enough to take legal action. Last time i heard any infringement is infringement even if its just 1 user.
UN declaration of human rights states that humans have right to culture and information. If there is no legal way to obtain it then it is a problem. your example is loaded and misconstructed. I am not taking anything if im pirating something, i would be copying the thing. If they stop selling a model of a car in my country and i would look at one driving around and build my own that would be well within my legal rights.

Capcha: make it so
no, capcha, im nto going to build a car.

You appear to be unaware of the concept of burden of proof. The film companies alleged that hotfile was deliberately allowing its customers to pirate. They presented the court with evidence that was the case and on the balance of probabilities the judge believed them. The legal test which the case has to pass is does the plaintiff have a fair and reasonable expectation that a hotfile should act on 8 million complaints. Fair and reasonableness been a fundamental test of common law since the 1300s and is found in all former parts of the British empire.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

I am not aware of any laws that make distinctions between the amount of pirated content on the site being "bad enough" and not enough to take legal action. Last time i heard any infringement is infringement even if its just 1 user.
UN declaration of human rights states that humans have right to culture and information. If there is no legal way to obtain it then it is a problem. your example is loaded and misconstructed. I am not taking anything if im pirating something, i would be copying the thing. If they stop selling a model of a car in my country and i would look at one driving around and build my own that would be well within my legal rights.

Capcha: make it so
no, capcha, im nto going to build a car.

You appear to be unaware of the concept of burden of proof. The film companies alleged that hotfile was deliberately allowing its customers to pirate. They presented the court with evidence that was the case and on the balance of probabilities the judge believed them. The legal test which the case has to pass is does the plaintiff have a fair and reasonable expectation that a hotfile should act on 8 million complaints. Fair and reasonableness been a fundamental test of common law since the 1300s and is found in all former parts of the British empire.

The 8 million complains mean nothing. if you ever ran a website you would know how many times some random company bot flags your page for "Copyright infringement" and you have to prove google that you are not. burden of proof in copyright law almost always fall on the victim and not the claimee. which shows just how awful current copyright laws are.

 

[Albino Boo]

The 8 million complains mean nothing. if you ever ran a website you would know how many times some random company bot flags your page for "Copyright infringement" and you have to prove google that you are not. burden of proof in copyright law almost always fall on the victim and not the claimee. which shows just how awful current copyright laws are.

Thats job of hotfiles lawyers to dispute the validity of those complainants which clearly they failed to do so. You still fail to understand the fair and reasonable is part of standard legal argument. The lawyers for the film company presented evidence that 8 million times hotfile was hosting pirated material. Hotfile was unable to dispute the evidence and then coupled with the fact they only took action 43 cases, it represented a pattern of behavior.

the legal argument goes something like this

Is it fair reasonable for the film companies to expect action to be taken after making complaints Yes/No

Did hotfile take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

So hotfile received 8 million complaints which it was unable to dispute the validity of the those complaints.

Hotfile only took action with relation to 43 complaints. So they did not take fair and reasonable action. Therefore they have damages awarded against them


Now that take the case of escapist and a link being posted

Is it fair reasonable for the film companies to expect action to be taken after making complaints Yes/No


Did the escapist take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

So the escapist is still expected to delete links when complaints are made.


Did the escapist take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

the answer here is yes they did. The escapists rigorously bans accounts and deletes links voluntarily without complaints being made. This also represents a pattern a behavior. So the Escapist would not have damages awarded against them because they behave in fair and reasonable manner. If some links get missed that does matter because they showed consistent attempts to prevent copyright being violated. To expect all links to be deleted would not be fair and reasonable.

 

[Nielas]

The 8 million complains mean nothing. if you ever ran a website you would know how many times some random company bot flags your page for "Copyright infringement" and you have to prove google that you are not. burden of proof in copyright law almost always fall on the victim and not the claimee. which shows just how awful current copyright laws are.

Thats job of hotfiles lawyers to dispute the validity of those complainants which clearly they failed to do so. You still fail to understand the fair and reasonable is part of standard legal argument. The lawyers for the film company presented evidence that 8 million times hotfile was hosting pirated material. Hotfile was unable to dispute the evidence and then coupled with the fact they only took action 43 cases, it represented a pattern of behavior.

the legal argument goes something like this

Is it fair reasonable for the film companies to expect action to be taken after making complaints Yes/No

Did hotfile take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

So hotfile received 8 million complaints which it was unable to dispute the validity of the those complaints.

Hotfile only took action with relation to 43 complaints. So they did not take fair and reasonable action. Therefore they have damages awarded against them


Now that take the case of escapist and a link being posted

Is it fair reasonable for the film companies to expect action to be taken after making complaints Yes/No


Did the escapist take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

So the escapist is still expected to delete links when complaints are made.


Did the escapist take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

the answer here is yes they did. The escapists rigorously bans accounts and deletes links voluntarily without complaints being made. This also represents a pattern a behavior. So the Escapist would not have damages awarded against them because they behave in fair and reasonable manner. If some links get missed that does matter because they showed consistent attempts to prevent copyright being violated. To expect all links to be deleted would not be fair and reasonable.

Exactly. As the OP stated, the DMC Act grants websites protection if they deal with complaints in a reasonable manner. The court ruled that they did not so they lost the protection. It's not an exact standard Hotfile seemed to have been really sloppy and taken it to the extreme.

 

[Strazdas]

The 8 million complains mean nothing. if you ever ran a website you would know how many times some random company bot flags your page for "Copyright infringement" and you have to prove google that you are not. burden of proof in copyright law almost always fall on the victim and not the claimee. which shows just how awful current copyright laws are.

Thats job of hotfiles lawyers to dispute the validity of those complainants which clearly they failed to do so. You still fail to understand the fair and reasonable is part of standard legal argument. The lawyers for the film company presented evidence that 8 million times hotfile was hosting pirated material. Hotfile was unable to dispute the evidence and then coupled with the fact they only took action 43 cases, it represented a pattern of behavior.

the legal argument goes something like this

Is it fair reasonable for the film companies to expect action to be taken after making complaints Yes/No

Did hotfile take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

So hotfile received 8 million complaints which it was unable to dispute the validity of the those complaints.

Hotfile only took action with relation to 43 complaints. So they did not take fair and reasonable action. Therefore they have damages awarded against them


Now that take the case of escapist and a link being posted

Is it fair reasonable for the film companies to expect action to be taken after making complaints Yes/No


Did the escapist take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

So the escapist is still expected to delete links when complaints are made.


Did the escapist take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

the answer here is yes they did. The escapists rigorously bans accounts and deletes links voluntarily without complaints being made. This also represents a pattern a behavior. So the Escapist would not have damages awarded against them because they behave in fair and reasonable manner. If some links get missed that does matter because they showed consistent attempts to prevent copyright being violated. To expect all links to be deleted would not be fair and reasonable.

So people are guilty untill proven otherwise now? i seem to remember back when it was innocent untill proven guilty. It must just be my lunacy though.
DId the lawyers of movie industry prove such evidence? do you know how hard it is to prove that? It would take thousands of layers many many years to do that. In fact they would have to contact every single user for that. What is more believable is that they used same listing as DCMA fueled takedowns - as in most of them are false and are wrong.

If somone sends me a takedown notice providing no proof of hosted material breaking the law i will not take the content down. the takedown notice may work for youtube that automate things but that isnt proof. Except unless your in US where companies can shut down anyone on a whim apparently.

Is it fair reasonable for the film companies to expect action to be taken after making complaints Yes/No
No. they need to provide proof.

Did hotfile take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No
Unknown. (to us anyway).

So hotfile received 8 million complaints which it was unable to dispute the validity of the those complaints.

You need to provide the claim has grounds, not the other way around. I could send you a lot of claims for crimes you have nto commited and make you bancrupt trying to prove me wrong very easily. except that it is me who have to provide proof in this case. the only exception is copyright law in US.

Hotfile only took action with relation to 43 complaints. So they did not take fair and reasonable action. Therefore they have damages awarded against them

No. Hotfire banned 43 users. That could easily mean covering over 50.000 complaints as one user may have uploaded a lot of files. I know some Piratebay users who have over 10.000 uploads.

Now that take the case of escapist and a link being posted

Is it fair reasonable for the film companies to expect action to be taken after making complaints Yes/No

No. They need to provide proof.

Did the escapist take fair and reasonable action when complaints were made Yes/No

Unknown. (to us anyway).

So the escapist is still expected to delete links when complaints are made.

No, escapist is expected to delete links to copyright material, complains or no complaints. It could however argue that policing everything all the time with such large userbase is physically unfeasable.