Wow! Google just rejustified its "Do no evil" motto.
On an unrelated note, I'm really surprised that after all the words written on this subject, especially after the MegaUpload fiasco, this is the first article that states that removing not only the infringing links, but the actual files, is plain wrong.
I believe it is within the scope of fair use for me to upload files (copyrighted) to any Upload/Download service (like Hotfile, Rapidshare, Megaupload, Dropbox). It could be simply to keep backups / not have to carry USB disks to remote locations. Only when the file is shared (by sharing its link) could that be considered an infringement, and even in that case, the link might simply be stolen from me, so the burden of proof would still lie with the copyright holders.
They have a significant stake in the DMCA and what its legislation protects. If the DMCA is allowed to erode too easily by MPAA & Co., Google's many businesses may be threatened either directly or indirectly.
Google is looking out for their own well-being (which is perfectly fine), it just so happens their action happens to shield certain other companies at the same time.
Still, this may actually be even more beneficial than "do no evil" (which would only be ascribed to Google's own actions). This is much more akin to "do not let evil occur."
> They have a significant stake in the DMCA and what its legislation protects.
So does dozen of other tech companies. But it's Google who keep showing over and over again defending internet freedom. Where are the others defending Hotfile?
I don't mean to naively imply Google is somehow a benevolent saint that values altruism over capitalism. But assuming the human beings running these companies don't try to push their ideologies whenever they get a chance, is naive as well. There's a strong culture for internet freedom among Google employees, and that is reflected on the company's actions.
But for us, all that matters is that they're doing something good. We should be supportive and do what's in our power so others join them.
It shouldn't be only Google defending them and fighting for this. Dropbox and any other company with similar services should join up and defend Hotfile. It may be their last line of defense before they find their own businesses in danger of being seized by the US Government.
I like how the MPAA is being burned by the law that they bribed the politicians to pass. They laid out a very specific set of rules for websites to follow, and now they are upset that websites are following them. If it weren't so corrupt and evil, it would make me laugh...
"Update: MPAA just asked the court to deny Google’s amicus brief. They argue that Google’s perspective is one-sides and that the company acts as a partisan advocate for Hotfile."
Incredible. This plays out like a bad soap opera, except one where all of our freedoms are at stake.
If Google's brief is one-sided, what does that make the MPAA's attack?
The MPAA is apparenly the plaintiff here, I'd expect it's okay for them to be biased! Google isn't immediately part of the case and is butting in on the assumption that they're helping out the court, not to make the whole case for either side.
Saying that any site which receives a ton of DMCA takedown requests is a piracy site is a ridiculous argument, and hopefully the courts will heed Google's defense.
“But, in this respect, Hotfile did exactly what the DMCA demands, and plaintiffs’ takedown notices cannot be used to charge the service with knowledge of allegedly infringing material that those notices did not specifically identify.”
Yes, exactly! I think people in general -at least by the comments in the Megupload stories- have a misguided view on this issue. They assume that copyright is a property of a sequence of bits, when it's in fact dependent on the provenience of a particular copy.
If I copy some MBs from /dev/random to a file and get a bit-by-bit equal file to an MP3 of Yellow Submarine, that doesn't mean the Beatles own the copyright over that file, since its provenience wasn't their creation.
Similarly, if I encrypt an MP3 that I bought on iTunes, I still can't distribute it even though the bytes are completely different, because the provenience is there.
The problem is that the RIAA and MPAA are basically being a bunch of hypocrites, by trying to argue that the provenience either matters or doesn't as it suits them.
>'The site’s popularity is “a direct result of the massive digital theft that Hotfile promotes,” the movie industry group said.' //
Gah, this again.
If it's theft they should be able to show what digital goods they have been denied. Can't someone please smack any movie industry group that makes such false statements about copyright infringement.
Google removed Grooveshark (who relies on DMCA just like YouTube) from the Android Market/Play due to unspecified reasons (speculated to be label pressure) but will stand in court for hotfile. While they are totally doing the right thing here, it's a bit sad that they pick and choose when to do the right thing.
Sometimes you have to retreat and live to fight another day. With the labels pressuring, they would have had to risk litigation to protect one specific vendor, something I'm pretty sure they weren't willing to do. With this, they have the chance to prevent a precedent of the DMCA being overruled by the lobbyist dollars; helping not just Hotfile but also themselves.
Google has to act in the best interest of its shareholders, after all.
The title of this article is misleading. Google isn't sending their lawyers to be the defense council of hotfile, they just filed an amicus brief in support of hotfile. They have a history of filing amicus briefs in cases that have potential to set precedent that might affect them. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Google understands that its goose might be cooked if the DMCA's safe harbor rules are trashed any time soon. All the things Google would plausibly be legally responsible for would add up to a very big liability risk.
It's nice when one of the giants has skin in the game on the good side of the table.
On an unrelated note, I'm really surprised that after all the words written on this subject, especially after the MegaUpload fiasco, this is the first article that states that removing not only the infringing links, but the actual files, is plain wrong.
I believe it is within the scope of fair use for me to upload files (copyrighted) to any Upload/Download service (like Hotfile, Rapidshare, Megaupload, Dropbox). It could be simply to keep backups / not have to carry USB disks to remote locations. Only when the file is shared (by sharing its link) could that be considered an infringement, and even in that case, the link might simply be stolen from me, so the burden of proof would still lie with the copyright holders.