Hotfile

Last updated
Hotfile
Hotfile logo.png
Type of site
 File hosting service
Available in English and 19 languages
OwnersHotfile Corp.
URL web.archive.org/web/20131204191916/http://hotfile.com/
CommercialYes
RegistrationOptional
LaunchedMarch 18, 2001;22 years ago (2001-03-18)
Current statusShut down by United States federal court

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million. [1]

Contents

Usage

Hotfile allowed users to upload and download files with any web browser. Non-registered users were allowed to upload up to 400 MB at once. After a successful file upload, the user was given a unique URL which allowed others to download the file. Non-registered users had to wait 15 seconds in the download queue and might have needed to enter a CAPTCHA and have to wait 30 minutes to download another file after a previous download session ended (even if the file did not download completely). Hotfile did not provide a search engine or browser. The site was offered in 19 different languages including Arabic, Bulgarian, Czech, two types of Chinese, Dutch, German, English, French, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish.

Features

The service had a Link Checker where users could enter file URLs in order to check their current availability. There was also a Hotlink feature, which allowed users to directly link to their files for an additional fee.

Terms of use and privacy policy

Hotfile was a service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, [2] 17 U.S.C. § 512 ("DMCA"). Hotfile responded to claims of copyright infringement reported to its designated copyright agent.

In Hotfile's Privacy Policy under the 'Usage Data' section they stated "We automatically collect usage information...type of Web browser you use, your operating system, your Internet Service Provider, your IP address, the links you use, and the time and duration of your use of the Service...be aware, however, that we may be required to disclose information such as your IP address which could be used by others to attempt to identify you."

In February 2011, Hotfile and its alleged owner Anton Titov (a foreign national residing in Florida) were sued by the MPAA on behalf of Disney Enterprises, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios, Columbia Pictures, and Warner Bros. alleging both direct and secondary copyright infringement. [3] [4] [5] Because the site charged membership fees for its premium service, the MPAA argued that Hotfile "profits richly while paying nothing to the studios" for the allegedly infringing files. [5]

Google had argued in an amicus brief that Hotfile should benefit from the same protections that YouTube enjoys, arguing that "Hotfile did exactly what the DMCA demands, and plaintiffs’ takedown notices cannot be used to charge the service with knowledge of allegedly infringing material that those notices did not specifically identify." [6]

The direct copyright infringement claims were thrown out by judge Adalberto Jordan in July 2011, leaving only the secondary liability allegations to be decided. [7] [8]

The secondary liability part of the lawsuit was likely to proceed in light of the inducement rule decided by the US Supreme Court in MGM Studios v. Grokster . [7] In 2012, the movie studios have argued that Hotfile's business model was identical to that of Megaupload, which had just been shut down by the US government, and they asked for a summary judgement. [9]

A summary judgement was granted by judge Kathleen Williams in August 2013, finding Hotfile vicariously liable for the actions of its users; she also found Titov personally liable. [10] [11] Judge Williams also denied the defendants an interlocutory appeal on the matter of vicarious liability (meaning they would have had to appeal the final verdict in the case). [11] However Williams did not grant summary judgement on Hotfile's liability for inducement and contributory infringement. [11] [12] This later part of the trial was scheduled to begin as a jury trial [11] on December 9, 2013, but a settlement was reached in early December, resulting in the site's closure. [13]

Countersuit against Warner Brothers

On 12 September 2011 the company filed a counterclaim accusing movie studio Warner Bros. of fraud and abuse. According to the complaint, Warner systematically misused the copyright infringement takedown tool (SRA) Hotfile had built for them. Hotfile alleges that Warner has willingly taken down files without holding the copyrights, game demos and even open-source software and that the inappropriate takedowns continued even after the movie studio was repeatedly notified about the false claims. [14]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in this countersuit, arguing that the automated systems used by Warner are illegal. [15]

Warner admitted to some errors in their takedown notices, however it refuted other claims, saying that they were legitimate; in the case of the open-source software they argued that it "had been posted alongside infringing Warner content in order to facilitate the rapid downloading of the infringing Warner content" and that it had permission of the relevant copyright owners to remove the gaming software in question. [16] Furthermore, Warner rejected EFF's claims that the DMCA prohibits automated systems like the one it used. Warner claimed that less than one-tenth of one percent of the notices they sent to Hotfile (890 out of almost one million) were truly erroneous. [15]

This countersuit survived the August 2013 summary judgement, [17] but the December 2013 settlement with (see below) ended this countersuit as well. [18]

Settlement and closure

On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, on the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The shutdown was preceded by the ruling of a US judge in August of the same year that the site and its owner, Anton Titov, had lost the safe harbor protection under DMCA "because they had actively encouraged infringement", [19] and consequently could be held liable for the actions of their users. [20]

Before its closure, Hotfile accounted for approximately 2.9 billion downloads. Although it had received approximately 10 million DMCA takedown notices, Hotfile had only terminated 43 user accounts, according to the judge's August findings. [13]

Related Research Articles

isoHunt Torrent index site closed 2013

isoHunt was an online torrent files index and repository, where visitors could browse, search, download or upload torrents of various digital content of mostly entertainment nature. The website was taken down in October 2013 as a result of a legal action from the MPAA; by the end of October 2013 however, two sites with content presumably mirrored from isohunt.com were reported in media. One of them – isohunt.to – became a de facto replacement of the original site. It is not associated in any way with the old staff or owners of the site, and is to be understood as a separate continuation.

Megaupload Ltd was a Hong Kong–based online company established in 2005 that operated from 2005 to 2012 providing online services related to file storage and viewing.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psystar Corporation</span> American computer company

Psystar Corporation was a company based in Miami, Florida, owned by Rudy and Robert Pedraza who sold "Open Computers" though one article claimed "Psystar, run by HyperMegaNet, based in Wolfsburg, Germany, currently ships to 23 destinations including the UK via delivery firm DHL."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.</i>

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.

<i>IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.</i> 2008 US District Court case

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132, is an American legal case involving an internet television network named Veoh that allowed users of its site to view streaming media of various adult entertainment producer IO Group's films. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Veoh qualified for the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2006). According to commentators, this case could foreshadow the resolution of Viacom v. YouTube.

<i>RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc.</i> 2009 court case

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d 913 (2009), is a United States District Court case involving RealNetworks, the movie studios and DVD Copy Control Association regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims on the manufacturing and distribution of RealDVD, and a breach of license agreement. The district court concluded that RealNetworks violated the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA when the DVD copying software RealDVD bypasses the copy protection technologies of DVD.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Copyright Alert System (CAS) was a voluntary industry effort to educate and penalize internet users who engage in the unauthorized and unlawful distribution of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing services. The program was operated by the Center for Copyright Information, a consortium consisting of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and the internet service providers AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> 2011 US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Megaupload legal case</span>

Multiple criminal indictments and enforcement actions were taken against Megaupload owner Kim Dotcom in various jurisdictions. On 19 January 2012 the United States Department of Justice seized and shut down the file-hosting site Megaupload.com and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others. On 20 January 2012 Hong Kong Customs froze more than 300 million Hong Kong dollars in assets belonging to the company.

<i>Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.</i>

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. was a copyright case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a DMCA takedown notice dispute between companies that produce virtual animals on Second Life. Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice to Linden Research, the makers of Second life, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies and demanding their removal. Consequently, Amaretto responded with a counter-DMCA notice and applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to forbid Linden Research from removing their virtual horses. This was granted and held in effect as the case proceeded. Amaretto claimed in court that Ozimal's DMCA notice was copyright misuse and asked for a declaration that its horses did not infringe copyright. Ozimals counterclaimed for copyright infringement. The court eventually dismissed both claims.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC</i> United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022 No. 09-55902, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which UMG sued video-sharing website Veoh, alleging that Veoh committed copyright infringement by hosting user-uploaded videos copyrighted by UMG. The Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that Veoh is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions. It was established that service providers are "entitled to broad protection against copyright infringement liability so long as they diligently remove infringing material upon notice of infringement".

Rightscorp. Inc is a Los-Angeles based copyright enforcement company, which locates alleged copyright violators and collects money from legal damages as well as out of court settlements on behalf of the copyright holder(s). Rightscorp manages copyrights of videos, music, and video games.

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

YouTube copyright issues relate to how the Google-owned site implements its protection methods. The systems are designed to protect the exclusivity of a given creator and owner and the rights to reproduce their work. YouTube uses automated measures such as copyright strikes, Content ID and Copyright Verification Program. These methods have been criticized for favoring corporations and their use of copyright claims to limit usage of uploaded content.

Mp3skull was a website that provided direct download links to MP3 files located on third-party sites. It was founded in 2010 and the site has been the subject of controversy for helping users to find unauthorized copies of copyrighted music.

References

  1. ↑ "MPAA SECRETLY SETTLED WITH HOTFILE FOR $4 MILLION, NOT $80 MILLION".
  2. ↑ DMCA web site
  3. ↑ Movie Studios Sue Hotfile.re Over Infringement Claims - Bloomberg
  4. ↑ War Against Cyberlockers Begins: MPAA Sues Hotfile — paidContent Archived 2013-12-13 at the Wayback Machine
  5. 1 2 MPAA sues Hotfile for “staggering” copyright infringement | Ars Technica
  6. ↑ Google says Hotfile is eligible for same DMCA protection as YouTube | Ars Technica
  7. 1 2 Judge rules “locker” site is not direct copyright infringer | Ars Technica
  8. ↑ Florida Judge Tosses a Key MPAA Claim Against Hotfile (Exclusive)
  9. ↑ Emboldened by Megaupload shutdown, Hollywood targets Hotfile | Ars Technica
  10. ↑ Hollywood Studios Win Massive Hotfile Lawsuit
  11. 1 2 3 4 Hotfile Can't Appeal DMCA Liability Ruling To 11th Circ. - Law360
  12. ↑ Warner Bros. Can't Escape Hotfile's Claim of Abusing Anti-Piracy Tool
  13. 1 2 Hotfile settles MPAA copyright case, agrees to $80 million in damages | Ars Technica
  14. ↑ Hotfile Sues Warner Bros Over Abuse of Anti-Piracy Tool
  15. 1 2 Warner Bros. Defends Anti-Piracy Notices In Hotfile Case - Law360
  16. ↑ Warner Bros: we issued takedowns for files we never saw, didn’t own copyright to | Ars Technica
  17. ↑ Warner Bros. Can't Nix Hotfile's DMCA Abuse Claims - Law360
  18. ↑ MPAA Will Collect $80 Million Settlement in Big Lawsuit Against Hotfile
  19. ↑ Hotfile agrees to shut down, pay $80M to movie industry on eve of trial — Tech News and Analysis
  20. ↑ Judge: MPAA can’t call Hotfile founders “pirates” or “thieves” at trial | Ars Technica
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.