As part of their $80 million settlement agreement with the movie studios, the file-hosting service also let the counter-suit over Warner Bros. alleged DMCA-abuse go.

This meant that the true workings of Warner Bros. takedown systems remained secret, since many of the court filings were heavily redacted. Arguing that the public has the right to know how Warner operated, the Electronic Frontier Foundation therefore asked the court to unseal the records.

Warner Bros. objected to this request, arguing that the effectiveness of their anti-piracy technology would be undermined by a public disclosure. However, two weeks ago U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered that it’s in the public interest to unseal the information.

The first set of unredacted documents were published by Warner Bros. yesterday evening. While it’s only a fraction of all sealed material, we can now see what the movie studio was so eager to keep out of the public eye.

Most of the unsealed information deals with Warner’s automated DMCA takedown tools. In the court filings these are described as “robots” which are programmed to mimic human behavior.

“Warner uses a system of computer programs known as ‘robots’ to help search link sites. for links to infringing copies of its content. These programmable robots are highly sophisticated and can effectively mimic the search a human would conduct, except faster,” Warner explains.

This isn’t a big surprise, but Warner clearly preferred to keep its automated takedown tools out of the public domain.

The unsealed information further shows that the script in question searches 200 hand-picked link sites for specific keywords. A takedown notice then goes out to the source site of this link. The actual content was never downloaded and reviewed, nor were the titles checked to see if Warner actually owned the content in question.

“Its search process relied on computer automation to execute programs and did not involve human review of the file titles, page names or other overt characteristics before issuing a takedown notice,” an unredacted court order reads.

“And because the files were not reviewed, neither Warner’s robots nor its employees made a determination whether there were legal uses for the files.”

Despite revealing details of its “robots”, Warner still redacts how many employees its anti-piracy division employs. Unfortunately for them they forgot to black out one reference. According to an unredacted court order Warner employed seven people in its anti-piracy division at the time.

All in all it appears that most of the redactions revealed up until now were meant to keep the anti-piracy operations shrouded in mystery. There is not much that can actually hurt the company’s anti-piracy efforts.

While it’s now clear that Warner’s DMCA takedowns were highly automated, there is still a lot more information to unseal. Many questions about specific errors also remain unanswered, including the fact that the studio intentionally targeted the open source JDownloader software.

Whether future revelations will lift more of the veil will become apparent in the months to come.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Hotfile alleged that after giving Warner access to its systems, the studio removed hundreds of files that weren’t theirs, including games demos and Open Source software.

The case was poised to reveal how Warner Bros. anti-piracy system works and what mistakes were made by the movie studio. But last November, a few weeks before the trial was due to begin, the case was closed as part of a settlement between Hotfile and the MPAA.

The decision was a disappointment to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who asked the court to unseal documents regarding Warner’s alleged abuse. According to the group, the public has the right to know what mistakes Warner made.

Warner Bros. objected to this request, arguing that the effectiveness of their anti-piracy technology would be undermined by a public disclosure. The movie studio asked the Court to permanently seal the records, but during an oral hearing this week U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams denied this request.

The Judge ordered Warner Bros. to hand over some of the information within ten days, and come up with a schedule for the release of all relevant documents. According to Judge Williams the public has the right to see how Warner Bros. handles DMCA takedown requests.

The EFF is happy with the ruling, and says it will help legislators to refine and improve the current DMCA process. This year both the Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. House Judiciary Committee have looked into possible changes to the current process.

“More information about how the DMCA process has been abused – particularly through automated takedown systems with inadequate human review – will help us improve it, and hold people responsible when they use this powerful tool of censorship abusively or without caution,” EFF’s Mitch Stoltz says in a comment.

“The sealed documents from the Hotfile case will help,” he adds.

While it’s too late for Hotfile, it is definitely valuable to see what how Warner Bros. made its mistakes and how their piracy takedown technology is set up.

“We’re pleased that Judge Williams preserved the public’s right to open court proceedings here, and we are looking forward to a close analysis of the Warner documents when they are released,” Stoltz concludes.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

While the agreement left room for the file-hosting service to continue its operations by implementing a filtering mechanism, the company decided to throw in the towel and shut down.

However, that doesn’t mean the trouble is over for the defunct file-sharing site. Encouraged by Hollywood’s multi-million dollar victory, several of the world’s largest book publishers have now filed a lawsuit of their own against the site and its owner.

Pearson Education, Cengage Learning, John Wiley and Sons, Elsevier and McGraw-Hill lodged a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, accusing Hotfile of vicarious copyright infringement.

“Hotfile built a business off of infringement. The book publishers’ rights were massively infringed by the site and its operators. They should not be allowed to simply pocket their profits and walk away from the harm they caused,” a representative of the book publishers tells TorrentFreak.

The publishers have submitted 50 books as evidence, including ‘Office 2007 for Dummies’ and ‘C++ How to Program,’ for which they demand compensation. This means that Hotfile is facing up to $7.5 million in damages, if they are found guilty.

The complaint itself offers little new and repeats several arguments that were previously made in the MPAA vs. Hotfile case. Among other things, the publishers note that Hotfile knew that their service was widely used for copyright infringement.

“Hotfile was aware that the vast majority of the files on its service were copyrighted. It received millions of takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, received correspondence from users and affiliates identifying copyrighted works and recognized that users were migrating to Hotfile for copyrighted works after competitor RapidShare was sued,” the complaint reads.

The publishers further accuse Hotfile of doing nothing to remove pirated files from its service, and claim that the filehoster lacked a repeat infringer policy, which the court previously saw as a requirement by the DMCA to qualify for safe harbor.

“Hotfile failed to ban with any consistency repeat infringers who accounted for a large percentage of the infringing files on the system. Despite receiving millions of DMCA notices, Hotfile did not track whether any of the uploads came from the same user,” the publishers note.

As a result of these lax policies, a relatively small group of persistent infringers was able to upload dozens of millions of files, the publishers say.

“In fact, by early 2011, nearly 25,000 users had accumulated more than three DMCA notices and many had received 100 or more. This group of uploaders was responsible for posting 50 million files, which amounts to 44 percent of the files on Hotfile,” the complaint states.

Taking into account Hotfile’s legal history, the publishers have a pretty strong case. This may in part explain why they chose to pursue this target. The question is, however, whether Hotfile still has funds left to pay any damages.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

While the agreement left room for the file-hosting service to continue its operations by implementing a filtering mechanism, the company has decided to throw in the towel.

A few minutes ago the Hotfile site was replaced with an image with the following text:

“As a result of a United States Federal Court having found Hotfile.com to be in violation of copyright law the site has been permanently shut down. If you are looking for your favorite movies or TV-shows online, there are more ways than ever today to get high quality access to them on legal platforms.”

The notice in question is strikingly similar to the one isoHunt displayed last month following its defeat at the hands of the movie studios. The similarities suggest that both messages were drafted by the MPAA.

The decision to shut down the site without giving any notice whatsoever is causing problems among users and businesses who relied on Hotfile to store files and documents. Samsung firmware provider SamMobile, for example, has been forced to move its files to another hosting provider with a two day break in service.

“It will take at least 48 hours before we’re able to finish uploading all firmware, so do forgive us if you’re unable to get that firmware you wanted to download for the next couple of days,” SamMobile notes.

It’s unclear how many of the millions of Hotfile users stored files without a backup, but the number could easily run into the tens of thousands.

TorrentFreak has reached out to Hotfile to ask whether the company will offer a solution for affected users, but we have yet to hear back.

Following the Megaupload debacle early 2012 this is the second major blow for a US-linked cloud hosting provider. Needless to say, the recent events have put a serious dent in users’ trust, which may ultimately hurt the industry overall.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

February 2011 the MPAA filed a lawsuit against the file-hosting service. Since then they have been battling fiercely in court and after some delays a trial was scheduled to start next Monday.

However, as in the case against isoHunt, the MPAA has decided to settle the case before a jury can decide on the matter. A few hours ago the movie studios announced that they have signed a $80 million settlement with the file-hosting site.

The countersuit, where Hotfile accused Warner Bros. of abusing its DMCA takedown procedure, is believed to be dropped as well under the agreement.

The settlement deal was rubber stamped by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and requires Hotfile to shut down its operations unless it starts using “digital fingerprinting” technology to filter out copyright infringing content.

The MPAA is happy with the outcome which it says will help to protect the rights of copyright holders on the Internet. “This judgment by the court is another important step toward protecting an Internet that works for everyone,” MPAA boss Chris Dodd says.

“Sites like Hotfile that illegally profit off of the creativity and hard work of others do a serious disservice to audiences, who deserve high-quality, legitimate viewing experiences online,” Dodd adds.

At this point it is still unclear what the settlement means for Hotfile and its millions of active users. TorrentFreak asked the company for a comment on their future plans but we have yet to hear back.

Implementing filtering techniques is a drastic step, but not an unusual one in the file-hosting business. MediaFire, for example, successfully employs “digital fingerprinting” technology and remains the most-used cyberlocker on the Internet.

According to the MPAA, it should be fairly straightforward for Hotfile to do the same.

“The ‘digital fingerprinting’ copyright filtering ordered by the Court is proven to work and readily available from several commercial technology providers. Major websites and content services have been using the technology for years,” the MPAA notes.

The question is, however, whether Hotfile wants to go down this route. The company has removed the “premium plans” from its website and TorrentFreak has learned that several affiliates haven’t been paid out lately, which could mean that Hotfile is preparing to cease its operations.

While the settlement doesn’t come as a complete surprise, many people would have liked to see a jury rule on the matter. But perhaps it’s in the best interest of both Hotfile and the MPAA to end the case behind closed doors.

Update: Hotfile has shut down.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Next week marks the start of a trial in which a jury will be asked to decide how much in damages Hotfile must pay the movie studios. The trial is limited in scope, however, as the movie studios already won summary judgment on the issues of DMCA defense and vicarious liability.

With only a few days to go both parties have now reached agreement on the number of copyrighted works that will be part of the trial. Initially the movie studios wanted to include 3,808 movies and TV-shows, but this has now been reduced to 3,448.

“Defendants acknowledge and concede that Plaintiffs’ copyrights in all 3,448 of the Remaining Works in Suit were directly infringed by users of the Hotfile system, for which Defendants are vicariously liable, and for which Plaintiffs are entitled to recover statutory damages,” the joint stipulation reads.

The full list of pirated files includes work from all MPAA members except Sony Pictures. Among the pirated files are several episodes of popular TV-shows including Glee, Heroes, Lost, Prison Break, Friends and Fringe, as well as the movies The Karate Kid, The Bourne Identity, Bambi and The Matrix.

For each of these titles the jury or court can award a fine between $750 and $150,000. This means that Hotfile could face damages as high as half a billion dollars, $517,200,000 to be precise.

The stipulation further clarifies that Hotfile has waived all affirmative defenses against its liability for direct copyright infringement. The file-hosting service does, however, reserve the right to argue that its users were “space shifting” files that are not included in the suit, which could be seen as fair use.

“Defendants reserve their right to argue that files on the Hotfile system [other than the 3,448 files in suit] may have been ‘space shifted’ by Hotfile users. Plaintiffs reserve their right to argue the contrary, including that ‘space shifting’ is neither a relevant nor legally viable theory of fair use with respect to any copyrighted files on the Hotfile system,” the stipulation reads.

Aside from determining how much Hotfile owes the major movie studios, the jury will also have to decide on Warner Bros’ potential DMCA abuse.

Hotfile previously counter-sued Warner and alleged that after granting access to its systems the studio wrongfully took down hundreds of files including games demos and Open Source software without holding the copyrights to them. Hotfile seeks compensation for these false takedowns and the damage they have done to the company.

To the disappointment of the movie studios, the trial will be fought out without mentioning words such as piracy, theft and stealing. As reported before the weekend, the MPAA and its witnesses are banned from using such pejorative terms during the proceedings.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In August the movie studios won summary judgment on the issues of DMCA defense and vicarious liability, while the file-hosting site was cleared of direct copyright infringement. The remaining issues, including the damages amount, will be decided during a trial early next month.

In preparation for the trial both parties have submitted motions to the court in recent weeks. Hotfile, for example, asked the court to prevent the MPAA from using “pejorative” terms including piracy, theft and stealing as these could misguide the jury.

District Court Judge Kathleen Williams has now ruled on these motions, with the file-hosting service scoring several important victories.

The Judge granted Hotfile’s “pejorative” terms motion, which means that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use words including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the trial.

“Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms is GRANTED IN PART. The parties may not use pejorative terms but may use terms of art,” the order reads.

The file-hosting service previously argued that since piracy and theft-related terms are derogatory, their use could mislead the jury and possibly influence their judgment. According to Hotfile there is no ground to substantiate the use of such terms.

“In the present case, there is no evidence that the Defendants (or Hotfile’s founders) are ‘pirates’ or ‘thieves,’ nor is there evidence that they were ‘stealing’ or engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft.’ Even if the Defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs’ copyrights, such derogatory terms would add nothing to the Plaintiffs’ case, but would serve to improperly inflame the jury.”

The MPAA countered that there is absolutely no reason to exclude words that are commonly used in cases related to copyright infringement. Banning the terms would make it hard for MPAA’s lawyers and the witnesses to describe the events that took place, according to the movie studios.

“Terms like ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ are commonplace terms often used in court decisions, statutes, and everyday speech to describe the conduct in which Hotfile and its users engaged, and for which the Court has already found Defendants liable,” MPAA’s legal team wrote.

With her ruling Judge Williams clearly sides with Hotfile’s argument that the jury could be misled by piracy and theft-related descriptions. This is a clear win for the file-hosting service, but it also leads to the awkward situation that several witnesses can’t name their job titles, such as Warner’s head of Global Corporate Anti-Piracy.

Additionally, the MPAA can no longer quote Vice President Joe Biden’s famous comment: “Piracy is theft, clean and simple.”

The full list of motions Judge Williams ruled on includes more good news for Hotfile. For example, with regard to Hotfile’s countersuit over alleged DMCA abuse by the movie studio, Warner’s motions to exclude the term “perjury” and the studio’s audit of its anti-piracy system from trial were both denied.

On the downside, Hotfile’s request to prevent the MPAA from bringing up the criminal indictment against “Megaupload” was denied. This means that in describing the Megaupload case the movie studios can’t quote passages that reference piracy or theft.

It will be interesting to see how the MPAA tackles Hotfile now that they are restricted in the language they can use. It probably means that the term “copyright infringement” will be used more often than they had hoped.

To be continued.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The file-hoster alleged that after giving Warner access to its systems the studio wrongfully took down hundreds of files including demos and Open Source software without holding the copyrights to them. The takedowns continued even after the movie studio was repeatedly notified about the false claims.

While Warner later admitted the accusations, the movie studio argue that they are not to blame because the mistakes were made by a computer, not a person. As a result, the false takedown request were not “deliberate lies.”

However, not all false takedowns were unintentional. Warner admitted that one of their employees deleted Open Source software from Hotfile on purpose. Their rationale for this was that the software in question could have speeded up infringing downloads.

Warner nonetheless asked the court for summary judgment in its favor, but in September Florida District Court Judge Kathleen Williams decided to let the issue be heard before a jury later this year. She stated that there is enough evidence showing that “Warner intentionally targeted files it knew it had no right to remove.”

Through several new filings Warner is hoping to limit the potential damage, by asking the court to exclude two issues from being discussed during the upcoming trial. The first issue deals with Hotfile’s claim that Warner committed perjury, and the other relates to an audit of the movie studio’s anti-piracy system.

The perjury motion relates to Hotfile’s Special Rightsholder Account (SRA) which Warner used to remove links from the site. This tool required the movie studio to check a box confirming “under penalty of perjury that I am owner or an authorized legal representative of the owner of the copyrights in this material.”

Since Warner admitted that they submitted false takedown requests and Hotfile specified the above requirements in its terms of service, the file-hoster argued that the studio committed a crime. However, Warner disagrees with this line of reasoning.

“That is not how perjury works, not how the DMCA works, is irrelevant to the claims the jury must decide, and would unfairly prejudice the jury against Warner by suggesting that Warner’s errors amounted to criminal acts,” Warner writes.

Warner adds that the DMCA only requires the penalty of perjury statement to confirm that the sender represents the copyright holder, not that the allegedly infringing links point to their copyrighted material, they say.

“The DMCA ‘penalty of perjury’ language is thus narrower than the SRA language that Hotfile employed. The DMCA’s language applies only to impersonating a copyright owner or sending notices on their behalf without authorization; mere misidentification of the files being taken down or the works represented therein are at most incorrect ‘statements’.”

However, Warner also removed copies of JDownloader, which they were certainly not authorized to do. But this was also not a crime either according to the the studio, since it never claimed to be representing JDownloader’s developer Appwerk GmbH.

“To fall under the ‘penalty of perjury’ language in [the DMCA section], however, Warner would have needed not to misidentify instances of JDownloader as infringing Warner works (which is what happened), but instead to correctly identify the taken-down files as JDownloader and then misrepresent itself as acting under authority from Appwerk GmbH, JDownloader’s developer.”

Interestingly, the above reasoning confirms that Warner deliberately used Hotfile’s DMCA tools to take down files that they are not the owner of, an issue that will certainly be brought up during trial.

Warner believes that the above is reason enough to exclude the “perjury” issue from trial. Hotfile can’t just make up crimes by extending the scope of the DMCA, and should not be allowed to present an argument which could mislead the jury, they claim.

In a separate motion Warner wants the court to exclude evidence Hotfile has gathered on an audit of the movie studio’s anti-piracy system, and changes that were made as a result. Warner argues that the audit is irrelevant, since it was performed after the false takedown notices were sent.

If Hotfile would use the audit to argue that the movie studio was aware of the errors in their system, this could potentially confuse the jury.

“There is a substantial risk that the jury will see evidence of Warner’s efforts to investigate the claims in Hotfile’s lawsuit and correct any sources of errors as evidence that Warner ‘knew’ about potential inaccuracies in its system at the relevant times, and improperly attribute such knowledge to Warner months earlier.”

“Because Hotfile has selectively cherry-picked the instances in which Warner located and corrected errors as part of its August 2011 audit, there is further risk that the jury will misread the evidence as ‘proving’ that Warner’s system was error-prone and seek to punish Warner for it,” Warner adds.

The above suggests that Warner is not totally confident that the trial will end well for them. It is now up to the judge to decide whether or not the issues above can be raised during trial.

The judge is also still considering a motion from Hotfile to exclude terms such as “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” from their trial against the MPAA.

To be continued.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The file-hosting site was cleared of direct copyright infringement, but the movie studios won summary judgment on the issues of DMCA defense and vicarious liability. The remaining issues will be fought out in a trial later this year for which preparations are well underway.

The two parties are currently fighting over several trial related details, including which evidence can be presented and how. As part of this process, Hotfile has submitted a motion asking the court to prevent the MPAA from using pejorative terms such as ‘piracy,’ ‘theft’ and ‘stealing’.”

According to the file-hosting service these terms are derogatory and their use would therefore mislead the jury and possibly influence their judgment. Because of this, the terms should be excluded from the trial under rule 403.

“The Plaintiffs have declined to stipulate that they will refrain from the use of the terms ‘pirates’ or ‘thieves’ with respect to the Defendants or the founders of Hotfile, nor would they refrain from referring to those individuals as having engaged in ‘theft’ or ‘stealing’,” Hotfile’s lawyers write.

“Such derogatory comments fall well within the purview of Rule 403, which precludes the admission of evidence which is significantly more prejudicial than it is probative.”

According to Hotfile there is no ground to substantiate the use of terms such as “piracy” and “theft.”

“In the present case, there is no evidence that the Defendants (or Hotfile’s founders) are ‘pirates’ or ‘thieves,’ nor is there evidence that they were ‘stealing’ or engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft.’ Even if the Defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs’ copyrights, such derogatory terms would add nothing to the Plaintiffs’ case, but would serve to improperly inflame the jury.”

In a reply to Hotfile’s motion the MPAA points out that there is absolutely no reason to exclude words that are commonly used in cases related to copyright infringement. According to the movie studios the request is little more than an attempt to masquerade Hotfile’s wrongful actions.

“Terms like ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ are commonplace terms often used in court decisions, statutes, and everyday speech to describe the conduct in which Hotfile and its users engaged, and for which the Court has already found Defendants liable,” MPAA’s legal team writes.

“Defendants, knowing that the conduct referenced by the words ‘theft’ and ‘piracy’ is opprobrious, want to block Plaintiffs from using words that denote such conduct. But it would be unreasonable to prohibit the Plaintiffs from using commonplace words to describe wrongful conduct simply because the conduct they describe is unsavory.”

The MPAA further notes that banning “piracy” and related terms from the trial would mean that witnesses can’t use the language they are used to in their day jobs. Instead, the studios and their witnesses would have to switch to “awkward phrases and euphemisms.”

“The relief Defendants request, moreover, would prejudice the Plaintiffs by forcing their witnesses to testify without using the words they employ as part of their everyday job responsibilities combating the online theft of their works,” the MPAA writes.

“Defendants insist that Plaintiffs’ witnesses must resort to awkward phrases and euphemisms rather than using the more commonplace terms that the witnesses typically use and the jury will readily understand. This is nearly impossible – references to terms like “piracy” are pervasive in the testimony and trial exhibits in this case.”

In addition, the movie studios point out that avoiding the terms will prove to be quite a challenge. For example, Warner’s corporate representative, who will testify in the trial, has the word “piracy” in his job title.

District Court Judge Kathleen Williams is expected to rule on this, and several other motions, within a few days.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

A redacted copy of the verdict was released this week confirming that the movie studios won summary judgment on the issues of DMCA defense and vicarious liability. The remaining issues will be fought out in a trial later this year.

What the MPAA didn’t mention, however, is that the issue of Warner Bros’ alleged abuse of Hotfile’s anti-piracy tool will also go to jury.

Hotfile sued the movie studio two years ago for abusing the DMCA takedown process on numerous occasions.

The file-hoster alleged that after giving Warner access to its systems, the studio wrongfully took down hundreds of files including games demos and Open Source software without holding the copyrights to them. The takedowns continued even after the movie studio was repeatedly notified about the false claims.

In a response, Warner Bros. admitted the accusations. However, the movie studio argued that they are not to blame because the mistakes were made by a computer, not a person. As a result, the false takedown request were not “deliberate lies.”

Warner Bros. asked the court for summary judgment in its favor, but Florida District Court Judge Kathleen Williams has decided to let the issue be heard before a jury.

“There is sufficient evidence on the record to suggest that Warner intentionally targeted files it knew it had no right to remove. This precludes summary judgment in [Warner Bros'] favor,” the judge writes.

Judge Williams notes that Warner Bros. does not dispute the erroneous takedowns. The movie studio claimed that these mistakes were unavoidable but also admitted that it did not check whether the “infringing” titles actually pointed to their content. In addition, there are several other factors the jury will have to make a decision on.

“Warner readily admits that mistakes do occur, and Hotfile has identified characteristics that may be responsible for engendering those mistakes. For example, Warner’s staff did not download or review any Hotfile content before marking it for removal,” Williams writes.

Warner Bros. has targeted copyrighted works from other copyright holders, Electronic Arts for example. The movie studio also removed the software JDownloader, which was offered legally, no less than eight times for reasons that are redacted in the verdict.

“Specifically, Hotfile has provided the example of JDownloader, which Warner did not manage [redacted]. It has also shown Warner’s interest in an application of its takedown rights beyond works that it owns. And Warner has not otherwise argued that it had the right to remove those files, only that its mistakes should be excused,” Judge Williams writes.

The above is enough evidence for Hotfile to argue their case before a jury, in what promises to be a unique case on the appropriateness of automated DMCA takedown filters.

“The Court finds this motive and other evidence sufficient to sustain an inference that Warner violated Section 512(c), such that these issues should be presented to the jury.”

The case will now move to trial which is scheduled to start in November. Aside from the copyright infringement claims against Hotfile, the DMCA abuse case is expected to set an important precedent.

To be continued.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.