Google Files Amicus Brief in Hotfile Case; MPAA Requests It Be Rejected 214
An anonymous reader writes "Google has once again stood up in court for the rights of users and services online, this time defending Hotfile from copyright infringement accusations. [Quoting the article]: 'Google takes a sort of hard-line approach via the DMCA, telling the court that however the MPAA may try to mislead them, Hotfile is in fact protected under safe harbor provisions. And furthermore, Google suggests that the MPAA's approach is contrary to the language in and precedents surrounding the DMCA. The onus is on copyright holders to alert a service to the nature and location of an infringement, and the service's responsibility is to alert the user if possible and remove the material within a reasonable period of time.'"
The full brief has been uploaded to Scribd. The MPAA, naturally, has requested that the amicus brief be rejected by the court: "Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage — as well as an effort by Hotfile (whose counsel also represent Google) to circumvent its page limits. Google is acting as a partisan advocate for Hotfile, making arguments that Hotfile has or could have made in its own opposition to summary judgment. The parties here are well-represented and have the incentive and wherewithal to make all the arguments the court will need. Although Google purports not to take a position regarding summary judgment here, Google unmistakably seeks a ruling against plaintiffs. Google's motion should be denied"
Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage
Isn't this what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to do with SOPA/PIPA and all these other bills? I guess it's only ok when they do it though.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda, but I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean "Google owns several services that allow user-submitted content".
Because this is the current angle the MPAA is attacking competitors from. And we all know the MPAA won't be satisfied until every site has either shut down or been bought by their members.
Re:Google Gov (Score:4, Insightful)
Can corporations serve jail time or be put to death?
Re:Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the part that stuck out with me too.
It's a nice microcosm of our current legal/political system.
"Accuse your opponent of the same bad shit you're doing"
Google should fight the Copyright Alert System... (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone should be trying to protect their revenue stream on this one, it's google...
If enough users hit their 5th or 6th strike, that would impinge on googles money.
We need someone like Microsoft (antitrust experience) to help fight this crap. Also, it couldn't hurt Microsoft to gain a little positive press.
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
The legal system isn't about fairness, and those who are involved don't even seem to pretend it is any more. The goal of the lawyers is to win the case. If that involves making an argument that contradicts the one they made the previous week in every way, that's just how the game is played.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this is the current angle the MPAA is attacking competitors from. And we all know the MPAA won't be satisfied until every site has either shut down or been bought by their members.
Yeah. Have you seen the argument they're using now? It basically goes like this: Sites where the most popular material is infringing are illegal.
Now let's think this through. The MPAA owns most of the copyrights on the most popular material. Which means all they have to do is not license it, and most of the most popular material users post will be infringing. What they are actually arguing, then, is that all user-generated content sites not licensed by the MPAA are illegal. They get a veto over technological innovation because all they have to do is do nothing, and not license their stuff to the new technology, and then the site immediately becomes illegal because the users post it anyway, and the MPAA can sue and destroy the site at will.
It seems pretty obvious why that should not be the law.
MPAA: Accusing others of what they do themselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointing out the facts is not a 'systematic effort to influence the development of the law'. In fact it's been the MPAA and similar organisations that have been doing that, and the only ones who have been doing that, not by pointing out facts, but by describing their own fantasies (about how much they could earn, of course without thinking that if more money is spent on MPAA stuff, less is spent on other sectors in society) , and nightmares (about how much they're getting ripped off), and with their bribes (a.k.a. lobbying).
And of course these people don't even understand their clients: The obnoxious 'don't copy' ads at the start of DVDs is almost enough to make me want to 'pirate' stuff.
Accusing others of what they do themselves is something I found to be a typical trait of sociopaths in humans, and corporations are designed and geared to be exactly that, which shows the problems involved with corporations. Reduce liability: If a corporations spout such nonsense as this, they should be held in contempt of court, i.e. everyone responsible: The lawyers, and the entire board of directors etc.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to do with SOPA/PIPA and all these other bills? I guess it's only ok when they do it though.
More to the point: This is what they did with the DMCA. The irony here is that the MPAA's lawyers are arguing against the law that they or their cronies wrote.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:3, Insightful)
I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd
Then you are delusional. Google is acting in the interests of Google. The MPAA is acting in the interests of... no one actually, but they think they are acting in the interests of the MPAA. The interests of Google at the moment align vaguely with the interests of the population at large (actually, so do the interests of the MPAA members, they just haven't worked this out yet so keep fighting themselves), but there is nothing altruistic about either.
Interesting legal argument (Score:5, Insightful)
"Our opponents are trying to defend their interests, therefore their request should be denied"
Well played, MPAA lawyers.
Seriously. How much are these guys billing per hour?
Google or MPAA? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right, which doesn't change the fact that this is an argument we want Google to win because if the don't, we will lose along with Google and everybody else.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason Google is doing this is because this could directly effect them. If they link to copyrighted content, they could be held liable. This has nothing to do with 'standing up for the rights of geeks everyone' or whatever drivel the summary is espousing.
I agree, the fanboi responses to this are sounding dangerous, if not outright delusional.
This is a business decision, and a smart one on Google's part. The fact that it's good for joe user is a side effect. Nothing more.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.youtube.com/ [youtube.com]
http://picasa.google.com/ [google.com]
http://plus.google.com/ [google.com]
Three enough?
Ah hell, I'll throw one more in for free: Google Music (specifically, the "locker" feature) - remember, they never got official signoff from the labels that the music locker service was legit and they were okay with it. Labels could still go after Google for that service, though it's not clear that they'd actually win.
You don't think Google is *intensely* interested in the outcome of cases regarding uploads of copyrighted materials to online sharing services, given that they own & operate sites intended for sharing, and which can - easily & trivially - be used to share copyrighted content?
It's cool that Google is advocating for this, but make no mistake: filing this brief is also serving their own interests.
What we have Google to THANK for... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have Google to thank for helping our congress figure out that the Entertainment industry isn't the only private interest with money to spend... er--uh-- contribute. When you have pro-corporate politicians on BOTH sides of the isle coming against SOPA and PIPA when both measures formerly enjoyed so-called elusive bipartisan support, that can only mean one thing:
It started raining money on the other side of the issue.
The tech companies are now large enough and rich enough to make themselves both felt and heard. It's only a matter of time before the entertainment industry stops their offense and goes for a negotiated settlement. Their business models are in jeopardy and as they lose their ability to rig the game in their favor their days are only going to get darker not brighter. They're scared and they should be.
Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's rephrase entirely.
There's a whole bunch of stuff on youTube that is posted in violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights to do so. Google knows this. They are also aware that if this ruling goes against Hotfile, it will lead to a precedent that could cause considerable inconvenience for them.
Google's main concern is not about the morality, or finding who's responsible, or even reducing piracy. It's simply about mitigating a potential risk to Google's current business model.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that why people on Slashdot often speak out in defence of victims of the MPAA's crusade too? Because they think it's unjust, and realise if it carries on then they could be a victim themselves one day?
Or what, you thought it was all goodwilled altruism with no vested interest in supporting a specific stance?
Or were you just trying to troll Google?
Let's be honest, the only reason most people support anything like this is for self-interest, but importantly that doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes an outcome backed for reasons of self-interest is still the right outcome regardless of reasons for backing it.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's interests align with mine about 100x more often then the MPAA or RIAA's do, and this case is no exception. That may not make them less evil, but it does mean that in cases like these, where I feel they are unequivocally correct in their arguments, they'll have my support. In fact, the most evil thing Google's ever done to me is collect my information and use it to sell advertising space, which given the quantity and quality of the software and services I receive in return I fell is well worth it. If only congress would enact legislation that guaranteed my right to a delete button on that information (in case Google's behavior changes in the future) I'd be 100% happy with the arrangement.
Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality, because copyright is not a moral system, but a practical one, and practically speaking, there are no further benefits to the public that can arise from any strengthening of copyright, and a lot of benefits that would arise from weakening it or enfrocement.
Re:Interesting legal argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:3, Insightful)
I am realistic or cynical enough not to believe Google acts solely from altruistic principal. But I do believe that their motives are far closer to enlightened self-interest than that of the MPAA. The MPAA, in fact, is so singularly focused on their own immediate self interests that they fail to see that, in the long run, they are hurting themselves. Their actions alienate their customers and potential customers, they misunderstand the marketing benefits of widespread, cheap distribution of their product, they advocate laws that could be as easily used against their own interests as those they would use them against, and they act out of fear.
I have certain self-interests of my own to defend. In this I join with other users. And I welcome allies - even/especially corporate allies willing to spend money. And while I don't blindly embrace them without a thought to their motives, those would have too run significantly counter to my own self-interests for me to reject them out of hand.
I recognize that Google is acting out of self-interest, but fail to see any agenda on their part that even approaches the level of evil of that of the MPAA, RIAA and other such entities.
Re:Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
...Which has been their tactic all along with this kind of legislation. They start with the foregone conclusion that stricter copyright legislation is the solution. Once it's passed into law, things can go one of two ways:
1) If the MAFIAA's bottom line improves, then the stricter copyright law worked, so more/stricter laws are required to garner even more improvement for them.
2) If their bottom line continues to drop after the law is passed, then it obviously wasn't strict enough, so more/stricter legislation is required.
On a side note, how long until Disney blames the flop of John Carter on piracy, I wonder?