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.

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.

More ill-conceived nonsense. Do you even think about what you write before you write it?

An ISP clearly has no direct benefit from its users uploading to torrents. The YouTube/Viacom (learn to spell the company's name at least) case was completely different. Google is smart enough to put ads only on content from a verified source. They don't have an affiliate scheme that pays people to upload.

You may not agree with the wording of the DMCA, but the bad comes with the good. The law exempts safe harbor to service providers if they receive a direct monetary benefit, and they have (as all file sharing companies do) the ability to individually control what content is made available from their servers.

These file sharing companies have taken off because RapidShare (wisely) no longer offers an incentive to infringe. When they ceased their per-download affiliate payment model, precisely because of the potential for loss of safe harbor, the ill-informed hosters jumped in to fill the void. Now that their businesses have grown to something worth protecting, you watch: they'll either change their business model, or be sued to the last dime they have.

Host qualifies here:
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ag...lemuricomm.pdf

as does hotfile
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ag...otfilecorp.pdf

yes they do, you can share in the advertising revenue from poste videos.

You may not agree with the wording of the DMCA, but the bad comes with the good. The law exempts safe harbor to service providers if they receive a direct monetary benefit, and they have (as all file sharing companies do) the ability to individually control what content is made available from their servers.
[/QUOTE]

no they don't they INDIRECTLY profit from piracy

the fact is that hotfiles makes exactly the same amount of money per download if i put up a movie as a PARODY of a movie.

that the point there is no 1:1 relationsip between dollars and piracy
that what the court have repeatedly recongized as the limit need to void the safe harbor provision.



right and how many of your previous predictions have come true?

The information must be publicly available on their website. I can't find it here: hotfile.com/reportabuse.html

*here*?






8char

Don't be silly.

You'll be accused of living in the past. :1orglaugh

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

want to point out the section of the safe harbor provision that actually states that rule.

they just have to put it on their web site in a publically accessable way, they don't have to link to it.

a completely hidden page, that you could get too if you MANUALLY typed in the url in a browser would meet the DMCA conditions.

well its a public upload all they can do is delete on request just like youtube does. just my 2 cents

sure.

(2) Designated agent.? The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.

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?