Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hotfile Settles With MPAA, Drops Countersuit Against Warner Bros

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the some-heads-are-gonna-roll dept.

The Courts 88

After winning the right to use the term perjury in regards to Warner Bros abuse of the DMCA takedown procedure, and successfully blocking the MPAA from using the term "piracy" at their trial, Hotfile settled out of court with the MPAA today (mere days before the trial was scheduled to begin). As part of the deal, they are dropping their countersuit against Warner Bros, paying $80 million, and halting all operations immediately. The Hotfile website has been replaced by an MPAA message. From Torrent Freak: "The settlement deal was rubber stamped by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, ... The MPAA is happy with the outcome which it says will help to protect the rights of copyright holders on the Internet. 'This judgment by the court is another important step toward protecting an Internet that works for everyone,' MPAA boss Chris Dodd says."

cancel ×

88 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Perjury! Piracy! What? (3, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 9 months ago | (#45596749)

So, after winning the right to use an incendiary term in trial, and blocking their opponents from using another incendiary term, Hotfile... rolled over?

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45596843)

Perjury is a legal term. Piracy is an analogy.

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45597175)

Perjury is a crime. Were the appropriate penalties applied?

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (4, Interesting)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 9 months ago | (#45597227)

This is a civil trial. Perjury is a criminal offense, and prosecution must be brought by the state.

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 9 months ago | (#45597509)

In the free world you can bring a private prosecution, however in the US this freedom was killed in 1981.

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (1)

Teun (17872) | about 9 months ago | (#45597969)

One of the many loopholes in the US system, back on subject, just hope you live in Virginia :)

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45599645)

Perjury is a legal term. Piracy is an actual, real crime which is very different to and much worse than the crime of copyright infringement.

FTFY

Piracy is a crime with it's own specific legal definition and there is no good reason to us it in court as an "analogy" for copyright infringement which is a different crime also with it's own specific legal definition.

One might suspect that the reason they do it is because piracy evokes images of really bad people doing really bad things.

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (4, Insightful)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 9 months ago | (#45596901)

They may have just been flexing their legal muscle to achieve a better bargaining position, allowing them to settle for less than they would have had to pay.

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598211)

and 80 Million is reasonable, plus they've been forced to shut down, these Big media need to be knocked off there high horses, it seems like they're going after anything despite having no proof (in other cases) of copyright infringement. This is not how a free market, and democracy, works, but like I have been told my whole "your foolish for believing that bullshit"

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 9 months ago | (#45597577)

They won enough to get in the best situation to get a favourable settlement. They were never going to win.

Re:Perjury! Piracy! What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45612437)

I see foul play out of court here. Given the MPAA's ruthless attitude towards their targets aboveboard, I would not rule out their having done a little dirty fighting covertly to get this site to back down. MPAA can't be seen to lose a lawsuit, they'd lose steam and the thing would fall apart.

Uh huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45596811)

No doubt this was another "win by default".

"Everyone" (5, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 9 months ago | (#45596861)

Of course, by "everyone" he means the only people that count... rich people.

Re:"Everyone" (2)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 9 months ago | (#45597329)

Of course, by "everyone" he means the only people that count... rich people.

Not even. Only a small segment of rich people. Their only joy is getting richer than the guys in the other business segments, like Hollywood verses Big Oil.

Re:"Everyone" (3, Interesting)

rnturn (11092) | about 9 months ago | (#45597435)

Yep... Dodd also has a different definition of "works" than a lot of people would find to be appropriate. His definition appears to refer to "a mechanism that closes off content until rich folks' palms are greased with enough silver". When he says "works" he's not saying that it does anything for content creators after their initial legal contact with publishers.

Re:"Everyone" (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 9 months ago | (#45602317)

You really think there's *enough* silver for these guys?!

Re:"Everyone" (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 8 months ago | (#45610815)

Enough silver for that particular piece of content to be opened. There's always more content to demand more silver for.

Re:"Everyone" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598337)

That's what I noticed. "... works for everyone." Typical corporate speech for 'makes a profit for my interested party', instead of what the average person would probably mean as 'functions as a public resource.'

surprising (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about 9 months ago | (#45596867)

The most surprising thing to me here is that Hotfile was profitable enough to have $80 million.

Re:surprising (4, Funny)

paiute (550198) | about 9 months ago | (#45597389)

Considering that no movie ever has yet made a profit, yeah.

term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45596885)

Copyright will only work for everyone if the term is dropped to 7 years and no extensions.

Re:term (1, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about 9 months ago | (#45597717)

Seven years? Kid, seven years is nothing. How old are you, fourteen? I just published Nobots [mcgrewbooks.com] last month, have been working on it since 2009. I'd have a two year copyright.

The Paxil Diaries aren't even in print yet but the copyright would have expired.

Asimov's Foundation trilogy was out for ten years before Asimov made a dime from it.

The present copyright term is way too long and harms creativity and culture, but your length is equally ridiculous. Make it twenty years, same as patents.

Re:term (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597895)

Make it zero years, and do the same with patents. You can have your government-imposed monopolies in hell. Copyright (and patents) are anti-free market, anti-private property, and copyright often utilizes censorship to try to stop websites from hosting copyrighted materials. Truly a disgusting concept.

Re:term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45601741)

The "free" market concept is a fallacy. There never has been nor ever will be a "free" market. There are always forces working any market. A "free" market favors wealth. If you dislike monopolies so much then a "free" market isn't for you.

In what way is a copyright or a patent anti-private?

People and companies spend large sums of money developing copyrighted works and patented inventions and your expectation is that it should then be freely distributed? Your other arguments don't sound particularly communist.

Both the patent system and the copyright system are broken; however, they are both necessary systems. I agree with mcgrew. Twenty years seems reasonable length period for both a copyright and a patent.

Re:term (1)

Atomic Fro (150394) | about 9 months ago | (#45604503)

In what way is a copyright or a patent anti-private?

The way copyright is intended to work, after copyright expires the work falls into the public domain. Hence, anti-private.
The way patents are intended to work, the cost of patent protection is that the way your invention works is public record. Again, anti-private.

I am not arguing that this is a bad thing, but I do believe his claim is correct.

However, as long as copyright never expires and you can fudge your patent application with false or incomplete disclosure you can argue the other way.

Re:term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45610397)

True enough.

I would only add that neither are compulsory, but it is really hard to sell these things and keep them secret at the same time (a point that the copyright corps. don't seem to get or at least aren't willing to concede).

Re:term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597937)

Seven years? Kid, seven years is nothing. I just published Nobots [mcgrewbooks.com] last month, have been working on it since 2009. I'd have a two year copyright.

And did you spend those 4 years working on this book because of a personal passion for the subject or was it solely based on financial motivation? If your concern is some arbitrary ROE then you're not a writer I'd bother to read, and would suggest if you can't earn a living from a product in 7 years you're just too damn slow for the realities of the world today. Certainly artists and writers should be able to earn a living from their creative works, but the current state of copyright is the public domain only exists in the illegal actions of file sharers distributing without licence. The pendulum must swing back, and when it does 7 years is going to seem like a gift from God above.. adapt or die.

Re:term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45602247)

Seven years? Kid, seven years is nothing. I just published Nobots [mcgrewbooks.com] last month, have been working on it since 2009. I'd have a two year copyright.

And did you spend those 4 years working on this book because of a personal passion for the subject or was it solely based on financial motivation? If your concern is some arbitrary ROE then you're not a writer I'd bother to read, and would suggest if you can't earn a living from a product in 7 years you're just too damn slow for the realities of the world today. Certainly artists and writers should be able to earn a living from their creative works, but the current state of copyright is the public domain only exists in the illegal actions of file sharers distributing without licence. The pendulum must swing back, and when it does 7 years is going to seem like a gift from God above.. adapt or die.

Of coarse, under your system a lot of artists will fail to adapt and the total amount of art would decline.

So seems like if you assume that having a lot of art is a good idea some system to encourage it's creation may be in order. Perhaps some manner of intellectual property?

Re:term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598645)

I guarantee you'd make up potential loss on copyright expiration if you were to publish it under some kind of attribution license but with perks for buying it from you personally. Like signed hardcovers or something. There's always another way, and patents is a whole other can of worms. Those terms are arguably way too long as well.

Doesn't copyright start when *published* ? (2)

walterbyrd (182728) | about 9 months ago | (#45599029)

And not when you first started working on something?

If so, then your argument makes no sense.

> Seven years? Kid, seven years is nothing. How old are you, fourteen? I just published Nobots [mcgrewbooks.com] last month, have been working on it since 2009. I'd have a two year copyright.

No, you would have 6 years and 11 months left.

Re:Doesn't copyright start when *published* ? (1)

Devoidoid (1207090) | about 9 months ago | (#45599287)

Copyright in the US starts at the moment of creation. I don't know if this is further defined anywhere. At the very least it means when a work is first completed. Publication is irrelevant.

Re:Doesn't copyright start when *published* ? (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 9 months ago | (#45602571)

Current copyright in the US exists from the time of creation but the 70 year expiry period does not start until the author dies, which clearly has nothing to do with either publication or creation dates. The assumed death of the author and periods for works-for-hire do not kick in until 95 years after publication or 125 years after creation, whichever occurs first. Publish something in your twenties and the world can expect it to be locked away for at least the next 125 years.

It seems reasonable to assume the AC's great public policy contribution would apply from publication (i.e. the point at which the work ceased to also be a trade secret) but I do not hold much hope of any elaboration on the AC's part.

Re:Doesn't copyright start when *published* ? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 9 months ago | (#45604059)

I published the first draft at slashdot as I wrote it. Hadron Destroyers [slashdot.org] was published on slashdot on Dec 2, 2009. And as I don't have a huge marketing budget it will take some time for people to discover it, if they ever do. Click my home page link to read the finished version.

And four from seven is three. I released the book November this year, Dec 2 is four years.

Stupid MPAA landing page (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597053)

Quoting from the MPAA message now on hotfile.com:
"If you are looking for your favorite movies or TV shows online, there are more ways than ever today to get high quality access to them on legal platforms."

How about a list of those numerous platforms? How about a link to an MPAA sponsored page of links to these various legal platforms?

Yes, they are out there, but why the hell wouldn't they promote them?

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597245)

Moreover, how about list such platforms usable in places other the US.

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (4, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | about 9 months ago | (#45599285)

This answer is not available in your Region

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 9 months ago | (#45597297)

So where can I get a copy of all the episodes of Robert Morse's wonderul show "That's Life"?

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 9 months ago | (#45597383)

>So where can I get a copy of all the episodes of Robert Morse's wonderul show "That's Life"?

Or Esther Rantzen's

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597655)

>So where can I get a copy of all the episodes of Robert Morse's wonderul show "That's Life"?

Or Esther Rantzen's

Esther Rantzen's?
Oh, ye gods...why would you ever want to watch that drek again?
sausages...indeed.

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45597913)

How about a link to an MPAA sponsored page of links to these various legal platforms?

To which ones? What vendor do you pimp over another vendor? Who does Google sue when you put up the iTunes link? Who does Apple sue when their link is buried halfway down the page? How many people refresh the page and then sue because the sorting algorithm wasn't random enough (like choosing a default IE search provider)? How many of the links does Comcast block or throttle because they are or aren't getting a share of HBO GO or ESPN on Demand?

"Please consider legal alternatives" is fine -- in the bigger picture of things.

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598137)

To which ones? What vendor do you pimp over another vendor? Who does Google sue when you put up the iTunes link? Who does Apple sue when their link is buried halfway down the page?

Nobody? Such a lawsuit would be frivolous for starters.

The fact that the MPAA have secret immunity (i.e. connections / friends in high places) from prosecution is also a big reason not to fight them.

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (3, Insightful)

noldrin (635339) | about 9 months ago | (#45599149)

Unfortunately there is a ton of content locked up copyright holders with no legal way to view or access it, whether for entertainment or study. Much of it is decades old and some of it is culturally significant.

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 9 months ago | (#45600595)

Quoting from the MPAA message now on hotfile.com:
"If you are looking for your favorite movies or TV shows online, there are more ways than ever today to get high quality access to them on legal platforms."

How about a list of those numerous platforms? How about a link to an MPAA sponsored page of links to these various legal platforms?

Yes, they are out there, but why the hell wouldn't they promote them?

Because they know people will go back to thepiratebay to get their stuff. Or one of the other many file lockers. MPAA only has a PR victory here.

Re:Stupid MPAA landing page (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 9 months ago | (#45602611)

This is the MPAA, they will not do anything unless someone is paying them to do it. What do you think the MPAA's per-click charge would be? Seriously though, the message is probably court approved and cannot be seen to be commercially preferential to non-parties in the action.

Whoah there! (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 9 months ago | (#45597141)

"Perjury" doesn't mean they called Hotfile's CEO mean things and ate the last cupcake. It means Warner Brothers committed a fucking crime. Hotfile can settle all it wants, that doesn't make WB's actions any less of a crime.

So, anyone taking bets on the temperature of Hell when we see formal charges filed here?

Re:Whoah there! (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 9 months ago | (#45597205)

Perjury isn't a crime if a big corporation does it. Just like if you infringe copyright then you're an evil, artist killing individual. If a corporation steals your copyrighted image/photo/etc and uses it for their own purposes, at most they just need to say "oops" and toss some token payment your way. Corporations are people and all people are created equal, but some people are more equal than others.

Re:Whoah there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45599173)

Actually, from the example of the show Glee willfully stealing other artists' work without crediting them, and when caught saying "you should be glad for the exposure" (while still not crediting them or giving them any actual exposure), the corporation doesn't even need to toss a token payment, just offer to not sue the real artist as long as they shut the hell up about it.

Re:Whoah there! (1)

ihtoit (3393327) | about 9 months ago | (#45604223)

there's this thing in English law, I don't know about the US code, that specifies for every civil or criminal offence, a section entitled "Offence by Bodies Corporate", in which the Director of a company is legally responsible - whether he is aware of the act or not* - for every single thing that occurs on his watch.

*caveat: ignorance is not a defence. - seven hundred year old maxim of English case law

There is, of course, an exception to this rule: Section 71 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 provides that a public authority will be held immune from civil claims if it turns evidence in *any other proceeding*.

This exception is widely abused to gain immunity from criminal prosecution as well, as I have witnessed first hand.

Re:Whoah there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597285)

It means Warner Brothers committed a fucking crime

No, fucking crimes are crimes like rape, incest, adultery, bestiality, buggery, etc.

Re: Whoah there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598251)

So all comes involve sex?

Re: Whoah there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598803)

No, just the fucking ones.

Re: Whoah there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598919)

The joke was "fucking crimes".

Warner Brothers committed a "fucking crime".

"Fucking crimes" includes rape, incest, adultery, bestiality, buggery, etc.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Whoah there! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597411)

I've had people commit perjury against me in court. Judge didn't do shit. I was able to prove that they had forged a "sworn testimony" against me from a 3rd party by showing that the dates that it was dated outside the scope of when that 3rd party would have had any dealings or knowledge about the case. All the judge did was dismiss that single piece of evidence. You can get away with perjury all you want because judges don't care (they're used to being lied to) and juries will almost NEVER convict someone of perjury -- so good luck getting a DA to prosecute. There is no real defense for an honest man in court against a dishonest man.

Re:Whoah there! (2)

DrJimbo (594231) | about 9 months ago | (#45599641)

You can get away with perjury all you want because judges don't care [...]

That is only because you are an individual and not a corporation. We live in a feudal society where individuals are serfs and corporations are the lords and masters. The purpose of the courts now is to protect corporations from individuals. Crimes against serfs are usually not considered significant but if an uppity serf rebels against a corporation then there is hell to pay.

Re:Whoah there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45606461)

It's not limited to the US - my mother beat herself up, and lied about who did it in court and to police officers on multiple occasions, intending to frame someone for it (both for that incident and others). She was caught perjuring herself multiple times. Not a single thing came of it.

She got away with it many times.

Re:Whoah there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598305)

So, anyone taking bets on the temperature of Hell when we see formal charges filed here?

Considering that the background radiation causes deep space to be 2.7K, that would make a good ceiling.

Correction: (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 9 months ago | (#45597231)

You forgot to mention that Chris Dodd is a disgraced former senator. Why the MPAA would want to associate with a scumbag of that caliber is anyone's guess.

Re:Correction: (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 9 months ago | (#45597405)

He must've done nice things for the movie studios while he was in office. Giving him a nice cushy job after he's out is how they repay their lapdogs.

Re:Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597741)

Was Chris Dodd disgraced for having sex with farm animals? Does the MPAA arrange coke parties at farms so that Chris Dodd can have wild bestial orgies? Or was Chris Dodd the guy who was disgraced for having anal sex with underage boys in the airport bathroom?

Re:Correction: (2)

Rakarra (112805) | about 9 months ago | (#45598969)

Was Chris Dodd disgraced for having sex with farm animals? Does the MPAA arrange coke parties at farms so that Chris Dodd can have wild bestial orgies? Or was Chris Dodd the guy who was disgraced for having anal sex with underage boys in the airport bathroom?

None of the above. The only blemishes I could find on his record were that he was fairly cozy with the financial services industry that he was supposed to regulate from his seat as chairman of the Senate Banking Committe, and they heavily funded his 2008 presidential campaign. He was a VIP customer of Countrywide Financial and then voted to give Countrywide a bailout in the wake of the housing collapse. He was probably rightly seen as being deep in the pockets of Wall Street interests. On the plus side though, at least he managed to sneak in a clause limiting "excessive executive pay" for firms that the government loaned/gave money too (though even that was not without controversy...)

The other big blemish would be that he accepted the MPAA chairman role and has been their mouthpiece ever since.

Re:Correction: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598049)

Disgraced or not, he still retains access to his former Senate colleagues. And by "hiring" him, MPAA gets more lobbyist results than they would get from hiring a K street firm or funding a PAC (although they do that as well). When something the MPAA is interested in comes up, by virtue of his position, they get a head start in influencing the results leaving everyone else to react. This also allows for the possibility of "stealth lobbying", where he can lobby his former Senate Colleagues, and (hopefully) no one will find out.

Re:Correction: (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | about 9 months ago | (#45597661)

Why the MPAA would want to associate with a scumbag of that caliber is anyone's guess.

That's his perfect qualification for the job, of course.

Re:Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597697)

because while he might be a disgraced former senator, he is still a former senator with many other senators as friends...

its clear that no one in the world who has the power to change things believe that everyone is created equal. its all for personal benefit rather than the greater good. humanity sucks and i cant wait for the apocalipse

Re:Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598345)

Don't forget that he's too ignorant to understand that a settlement is not a judgment. I'd have loved to be in the room when the MPAA lawyers read that jewel.

RIAA should read classical greek myth stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597347)

Then they could learn the outcome of a story Hercules versus Hydra.

Well, this one's about the MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598095)

Who are clearly well read in the classics, as demonstrated by the upcoming blockbuster releases of Hydraman (summer 2014), Hydraman Returns (summer 2015), and the eagerly anticipated Hydraman reboot (summer 2016).

Jurisdiction (5, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 9 months ago | (#45597421)

How does a US federal court gain jurisdiction over a company located in Panama?

A ruling prior to this settlement held that Hotfile could be subject to vicarious liability for failing to comply with the DMCA (they allegedly ignored a bunch of DMCA takedown requests and failed to shut down a bunch of accounts despite repeat infringements), but the DMCA is US law, not Panama law. Unless copyright is somehow a special case (due to, say, international agreements), I fail to see why Hotfile should be subject to US copyright law anymore than US companies should be subject to Chinese or Iranian censorship laws.

What gives?

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 9 months ago | (#45597593)

In the US, the government bends over for business.

In China, business bends over for the government.

Re:Jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598495)

Is China the new Soviet Russia?

Re:Jurisdiction (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45599771)

In Soviet Russia, US is the new China.

Re:Jurisdiction (2)

future assassin (639396) | about 9 months ago | (#45597671)

>What gives?

Where have you been? There's this new law of the world called Intellectual Property which,... wait wait I'll explain it in peasant terms

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!"

See it all makes sense now

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45597959)

(due to, say, international agreements)

That, exactly, is what gives.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 9 months ago | (#45598735)

[International agreements], exactly, is what gives.

OK, but aren't such agreements usually limited to those specific terms which signatories agree to incorporate into local law?

Do these agreements instead create a situation where US copyright holders can sue in the United States without regard to what the law says in the defendant's place of residence?

Re:Jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45599475)

A real example of this is in the USA the King James translation of the bible is considered not copyrighted, but in England they have a perpetual copyright by the Crown.

Re:Jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45605941)

> How does a US federal court gain jurisdiction over a company located in Panama?

The USA of Ronald Reagan waged a war against Panama in 1988, fully defeated, invaded and occupied her. The USA has the same rights over Panama which the USSR-US-UK-FR allies hold over the defeated nazi Germany.

It was the panamians' fault not building a national military strong enough to resist the might of the Pentagon. Realpolitik is not fair.

Re:Jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45608569)

That would be great, if we hadn't pulled out military occupation in 2000...

MPAA message wrong (surprise) (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597427)

The MPAA message says that a federal court found Hotfile liable. The court didn't find anything because the parties settled before trial began. It seems a little disingenuous, but perfectly within the normal bounds of the MPAA playbook, to blatantly lie like that.

Re:MPAA message wrong (surprise) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45601061)

They may not have lied. The court may have had to certify the agreement (i.e. give their assent) and the agreement may have been Hotfile being liable for the $80M.

Re:MPAA message wrong (surprise) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45602787)

That's not a finding; that's an order entered accepting the settlement agreement. It's like saying "the judge entered the verdict" when only juries can return verdicts. Law requires extreme precision in language.

Hotfile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45597691)

Hotfile...lol. Pirates stopped using that service years ago, before Megaupload went belly up. They're now using Rapidgator and Letitbit and Uploaded.

Funny how the court systems here in the US and abroad are so woefully behind what happens on the internet.

Bullshit (1)

Powercntrl (458442) | about 9 months ago | (#45597805)

This really sucks for the Android modding community, as these type of file hosting sites were really popular for sharing ROMs. What really surprises me is that there actually were enough fucktards sharing Hollywood shit through file hosting sites that the MPAA took notice. I thought anyone with half a brain used torrent sites (like piratebay) for movies/tv shows. Hotfile seemed more or less for sharing legitimate files. If they can be intimidated into shutting down, can Mediafire and Dropbox be far behind?

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45598035)

If they can be intimidated into shutting down, can Mediafire and Dropbox be far behind?

Dropbox and its ilk use a vastly different business model.

dropbox is legitimate.... (1)

dk400 (1099671) | about 9 months ago | (#45598111)

dropbox is legitimate... their ways and means and business model is quite different from other so called me-too sites like rapidshare, hotfile,etc. compliance is the word ! as long as a website does not cross legal boundaries it can exist... MPAA is sure flexin its muscles, but IMO, it is only the fringe crass websites which are being killed...

insulting lie in the "MPAA message" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45600405)

If you are looking for your favorite movies or TV shows online, ther are more ways then ever today to get high quality access to them on legal platforms.

This is either stupidest, or the most dishonest, thing I have read today.

All of the "high quality" accesses are illegal. You either break the law when you obtain the content (piracy) or you break the law when you read the DRMed content without getting authorization (e.g. Blu-Ray). Or the quality if abysmal by modern standards, but maybe "high quality" if you're talking to a time-traveller from the late 20th century (e.g. Netflix).

Of all the tradeoffs, piracy is still the best (the easiest, the most enjoyable, measure it nearly any way that you can), even when you are spending lots of money (on indexers, hard drives, etc). It's not even about money, and that the MPAA would try to cast their meager offerings as somehow within being three leagues of the piracy experience, shows that they still aren't even really trying yet, and have virtually no intentions of ever seriously opening for business. You know what that means? It means piracy is pretty much everyone's only hope, so everyone reading that message and making the inference, is just going to go look for the new hotfile replacement du jour.

If MPAA knew what was good for them, they would not keep sending out such stupid messages where they would be seen in public. They just told the whole world that piracy is all there's going to be, for a long, long time.

If I were a corrupt ex-Senator like Dodd, but with a selfish rather than nihilistic agenda, my lie would have been totally different. I would have made the message be something like "We understand that you want high quality, and we are working hard to get our shit together. Please wait for an important new announcement," or some thing like that, implying that MPAA member companies will soon be opening for businessing and selling the same Matroska files whose quality and ease-of-use, you currently only get from pirates.

Then after telling the lie and watching piracy die down a slight amount as the public anticipates and Long-Awaited End to the current Era of Amazing Stupidity and a Return to Real Business (i.e. how Hollywood got wealthy and powerful in the first place!), I'd decide to make the lie become the truth, and actually do it and start accepting people's money.

You know, like an actual legitimate businessman.

Instead of looking like some kind of lying, anti-business, anti-entertainment luddite who is trying to drive profitable business out of America. Fuckwit.

There is only one way to deal with the MPAA. Keep giving them rope. Let them hang themselves, let them starve the studios into bankruptcy. Then maybe some new studios will appear, and form a new pro- business alliance (what the MPAA should have been), buy a DMCA repeal, and start SELLING the files so there will finally be an alternative to piracy.

Re:insulting lie in the "MPAA message" (1)

lgw (121541) | about 9 months ago | (#45601507)

It's quite absurd that ripping my Bluray to get "just a damn file" to watch is illegal (and it's not in all countries), but since it is, I have no incentive to buy the Bluray instead of torrenting someone else's rip.

If the MPAA had the vaguest glimmering of a clue, they'd notice the success of DRM-free iTunes and just offer every damn movie and TV show for paid download, DRM-free, from one central site. I'd happily pay to access that site!

Re:insulting lie in the "MPAA message" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45602355)

If the MPAA had the vaguest glimmering of a clue, they'd notice the success of DRM-free iTunes and just offer every damn movie and TV show for paid download, DRM-free, from one central site. I'd happily pay to access that site!

Clue? What clue do they need? They're making gobs of money, can manipulate the books to not pay anyone involved, can manipulate the government to get their way in all cases, and can do all of it without even the barest amount of oversight! Meanwhile, we're over here, constantly being abused by these laws and court rulings, clearly don't like it, and yet we willingly keep giving them money and advertising their products to others!

Remind me again, who needs the vaguest glimmering of a clue here?

MANY WONT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45601259)

If Hotfile will not stand ground against the MPAA and their partners, then many others will, and many people do not care if the final results are legal or not.

and the legal content uploaders get fucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45614519)

50 gb of work data gone..
how do i explain that to my clients.. just extended my premium.. money is gone.

way to go fucking MPAA

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>