File-sharing site Hotfile agrees to pay $80 million in damages
John Ribeiro, IDG News Service
@Johnribeiro Dec 3, 2013 11:55 PMprint
File-hosting website Hotfile has agreed to pay $80 million in damages and was also ordered to stop operations unless it uses copyright filtering technologies that prevent infringement of the works of studios, the Motion Picture Association of America said Tuesday.
The entry of the judgment against Hotfile marks the end of the studios’ litigation against the cyberlocker and its principal, Anton Titov, the movie industry body said. The jury trial of the case was scheduled for Monday.
Five U.S. movie studios filed a copyright infringement suit against Hotfile in 2011, alleging that the company paid incentives to users for uploading popular files to the system, that were widely shared. The scheme hence provided incentives to users to upload popular copyright infringing content to attract users who would pay for premium accounts to access and download the files, according to the complaint by the studios.
The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida found in August that Hotfile was liable for copyright infringement, and Titov was personally liable for Hotfile’s infringement.
Details of the Tuesday judgement were not immediately available on online court records.
In an earlier filing, Hotfile said it and Titov ran a business that was in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other U.S. copyright laws. The website said it removes access when notified about files that allegedly infringe copyright and also has provided copyright holders, including the five studios, the ability to block infringing files on Hotfile’s servers through “special rightsholder accounts.”
Hotfile in Panama could not be immediately reached for comment. MPAA CEO Chris Dodd said in a statement that the judgment was another step “toward protecting an Internet that works for everyone.”
Personally, I look at sharing movies and music freely as a people's tax on the 1 Percenters! Just how many hundreds of millions of dollars does Taylor Swift or Bruce Springsteen really need?
Joined: 03 Oct 2012
Posts: 213
Search topics
Location: Between Her Legs
Added: Dec 17, 2013 6:27 pm
Subject:
The U.S. Government has a small task force that has been operating since 2003 that goes after all File-Sharing Companies that are allowing people like you:D and I to upload / download. music files / full length movies, etc etc.
This is good for you and I, we enjoy it and it's all for free for us. But for some people they would rather pay for 30 days up to 2 full years. and that's fine for those people to. But!!! and I do mean But!!! The Entertainment Business (and we all know who that is ) It seems that "The Entertainment Business" has this little thing called "Copyright Infringement".
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
And what is "Copyright Infringement"
Copyright infringement is the use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works, without permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator.
Don't you think that the Movie & Music industries HAS MADE ENOUGH $$$$ MONEY $$$$ in the last 50 fucking years
that they could feed every Man Women & **** just in America Alone for 10 years. So I think that they should at least give something back to the general public for free or just a very small amount of money for there services, I know that the songwriters and the musicians need to be paid as well.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Well like I said before. Our Worthless ObamaCare "New World Order" Government has a Special List that they are going follow and take down just about every File Sharing Website out on the Internet, and as we all know what happen to MegaUpload "aka: KimDotCom and his Company, But he stood-up against the establishment and wasn't going to any of there BullShit,
He got his day in court and spoke his peace and won his case, but anyways most of you already knew this,
So your going to see a lot more mouse houses fall in 2014, but your also going to see new ones pop up on the "Net" just like "Crack Houses" This is just my opinion as I see it and is in No way affiliated with any Government Agency AND/OR Entertainment Business ........Feel free to comment me back and Don't Hold Back Just Let The Shit Fly Ass It May...lol Sincerely BTM.
The argument against that is it's not Taylor Swift but all the regular people down the line who really make it happen. An artist like Swift has very little to do with her music these days. Every song is basically the same thing over and over with adjustments to the melody that she has no control over. Her job is to look good for the cameras and practice lip-sync and that is about it.
The days of The Floyd or the Beatles going to Abby Road and spending 9 months together to try to be creative and produce melody are a long distance memory. Here in Nashville there are no 'music studios' any more-they just don't need them. A lot of videos are produced here however the days of actual 'film' are also long gone-everything is done from 'stock' and the artist does the lip-sync that is put into the video later-and does not even need to be here. Musicians are also not needed anymore.
Videos of live concerts are incredibly fake and if you know what to look for it really is nothing more than slight of hand as everyone focuses on the artist.
So, it is a ligament argument that persons who really do the work, are the ones who suffer the most from copyright infringement.
The counter to that is if it's all fake then why pay for it.
I don't really care either way, however, there is an argument that supports the little people who make the music happen.