

Google Defends Hotfile in Court - MCompeau
http://torrentfreak.com/google-defends-hotfile-and-megaupload-in-court-120319/

======
tomp
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.

~~~
Pwnguinz
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."

~~~
vibrunazo
> 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.

------
nextparadigms
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.

------
jrockway
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...

------
josscrowcroft
_"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?

~~~
ben0x539
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.

------
twiceaday
Google defends Google in Court.

~~~
shingen
Yep, should probably be the headline

------
icebraining
_“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.

This is all explained much better on _What colour are your bits?_ :
<http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23>

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.

------
mangoman
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.

------
pbhjpbhj
> _'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.

------
invisible
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.

~~~
Pwnguinz
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.

------
rabidsnail
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.

------
shingen
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.

