Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie
What a crock (as usual for you). Even if their they hosted a substantial number of non-infringing works, the fact that the DMCA disallows safe harbor because they 1) directly profit from the activity by selling memberships and 2) directly encourage uploading infringing works by paying uploaders to do it. A litigant need only prove a single case of infringement, for which the DMCA would not protect them, and punitive damages can be tens of thousands, and more.
|
do you even understand what a safe harbor provision is
if safe harbor disappeared the secon an infringement was proven, then it would be a safeharbor
non infringing act are always safe, the point is to grant them immunity from infringing act to prevent the host having to censor the free speech legitimate uses.
imagine the world you trying to claim exist, if you make one single cent of profit offering a service that could potentially be used as infringement you could have yourself driven into bankruptcy.
the entire economy would grind to a halt, hell isp charge money based on bandwidth they make money when people use bit torrent to pirate moves.
let go after them too.
Quote:
But it's not like that. They have THOUSANDS of infringing works, none of which are provided safe harbor. They have selected a business model that the DMCA specifically does not protect, and this action is the first in many against these kinds of file hosts.
Here's what can be determined in discovery alone:
* The names, mailing addresses, and other personal information of any uploader of infringing material (Hotfile must maintain it, so they can pay these people).
* The IPs of downloaders of the infringing material.
* The names and billing information of those downloaders of the infringing material who have paid a membership fee
* Access to accounting and revenue information, to ascertain real and punitive damages.
I wouldn't want to be a paid Hotfile uploader or member right about now. The MPAA is about to go after you.
|
did you even read the viaccom case, viacomm asked for similar information, they got redacted copies only.
they would have to pierce the safe harbor provision before they could ever get to that point to justify such an invasion of privacy.