they have it here:

http://hotfile.com/ippolicy.html

Isn't this great ... Now you can buy a membership to a *Pirate Ship* ...

and what exactly about

do you not understand, DD is claaiming that they lose safe harbor because they don't have the information on a LINKED page.

As usual strawman arguments from you... I never claimed anything about LINKED pages. But ON their website. If name, address etc. is not there, ON their own website, then they can't claim safe harbor. That is very clear stated in law.

It works the same way as 2257: A post box address or email is not enough.

It is on their website though. It's the Constantin Luchian guy from Florida. Am I missing the point you are making?

Yes, he found it. But if it was missing, then DMCA safe harbor may be lost. Many "service providers" think an email is enough. It isn't.

Ah right, I was going to say, it's linked to from all the main pages I've seen.

you said (you were totally wrong btw)
the problem is the only pages you can see are linke pages

if they had put up aasomerandomcharacters.htm in the rroot with that information you would never see it

yet you still claimed

QUOTE]They havent listed designated agent on their website as required (name, adress etc) so they do not qualify for safe harbor. [/QUOTE]


there is no way shape or form you could make the claim yoou were doing unless you were talking about linked pages, since you could see hidden or unlinked pages until you asked them for it under a court order.

once they saw the court order, there is nothing to stop them from putting together a page with the right info and putting it in the root.

unless you hacked their website and did a directory dump you could prove they had falsified evidence.

the only thing interesting about this thread is how it shows yet again how people can only perceive reality through their desires and preconceptions.

Hidden pages are NOT publically accessable. :error

You've obviously never worked with YouTube as an affiliate. They screen you heavily, review the content you submit before accepting you, and will drop you instantly (keeping any revenue you may have generated) the minute you post an infringing video. Get it now?

Wrong again. They make money when people get tired of the limited download speed bullshit and pay up. They pay affiliates per download. That intentionally encourages posting infringing content, for which they then DIRECTLY benefit. This can be proven in court: they rarely, if ever, disable accounts of repeat infringers (people against whom multiple valid DMCAs have been filed).

It doesn't matter how much non-infringing content they host. What matters is the business model they have established which places them outside the safe harbor protection of the DMCA. RapidShare was smart enough to see this, and changed their ways. YouTube never offered this kind of incentive, and is smart enough not to. Let's see if these other file hosts are smart or stupid.

have read even one single court ruling on this issue

the law says

"in a location accessible to the public"

as long as it not behind a password protected section, on the public page that enough

there is zero requirement to provide knowledge/direction on how to access the page

so www.hotfiles.com/somepageneverlinkedto.htm is in fact a perfectly complient place to post the info

because if anyone in the public were too type www.hotfiles.com/somepageneverlinkedto.htm they could get to it.

It's not accessible to the public if the public doesn't know about it. :error :1orglaugh

what a company does to appease copyright holders to avoid the court cost of a case they would win does nothing to change the rights they do have under the laws.

youtube spent millions defending themselves against viacom and they WON
they still spent millions.

do you even know what directly means
i sell you someone elses copyright material you give me money is directly profiting

i provide a service which host content infringing or not
i provide access it slowly infringing or not
and IF they don't like the slow speed i over them faster access to that content (infringing or not)

there are TWO conditionals on the transaction for god sake

there is no direct a to b transaction

a if b if not c then cash transaction which the court have repeatly recognized is not direct .


rapid share didn't want to fight, they did something above and beyond what the law requires to avoidd that fight, they lost traffic because of it.

your arguement is crap, if it truely didn't matter how much non infringing content you hosted youtube would have lost. Youtube had clips of tv shows on their site, they profited from selling ads around those clips, they sell position in the related bar (at 150 CPM btw) and they still won.

if the conditionality of infringement (copyright vs fair use) was enough for youtube, the double conditonality will be enough for hotfiles

care to produce one single court case EVER that made that ruling

you can't ,it doesn't exist.

the law only requires that the file be "in a locationaccessible to the public"

the root is an location accessible to the public even if you had to randomly generate file names and try them one at a time to get to it.

it inconvient not inaccessible.

btw



and it shows a overlay ad on the video.

I'm curious. Could you produce details of a court case where the courts were satisfied WITH this scenario or is it just that it hasn't came up before?

this


.

Rumor is Webazilla owns hotfile. :1orglaugh

to the extreme that i gave no

however one page was not linked anywhere on the site , but was accessable ONLY if you used the sites internal site search functionality with the right phrase

that precedent sets the bar way higher than what DD was claiming it was, and the arguement about available but inconvient was made to justify it.

So which case was it?

"Your honor, it's accessible to the public, but I won't tell the location"... :1orglaugh

Court case? You can't be that stupid? Or are you just trolling? :helpme

so your so astronomically stupid you don't realize that

"your honor, we didn't link that info on our public pages but if you searched for the persons name on our site search you can see quite clearly the page with all the info comes up"

would also be a perfect example of what i am talking about.

got it

if your entire arguement is well there no way they would get away with telling the judge to fuck off means automatic elimination of safe harbor, your way to stupid to argue with.

what case for curiosity's sake?