14 DAY TRIAL // A few days ago, Google's involvement in a copyright case against cyberlocker Hotfile was revealed. The internet company intervened with an amicus brief explaining the importance of the DMCA safe harbors and the effect the court's decision in this case could have on the web as a whole.
The MPAA, the plaintiff in the case was understandably critical of Google's move and especially of its motives. The movie studio lobbying group argued that Google was not a neutral party but was interested in bending the law to its favor.
The MPAA believed that Google's arguments were undeserving of attention since they presented a "one-sided" view and because Google's intention was to make sure its business was not damaged by the court's decision.
Which, in the end is true, Google's motives for the amicus brief are that the wrong decision could have grave repercussions that would affect Google as well as plenty of other companies and sites. And Google does want laws that are favorable to it. Of course, the MPAA's wants exactly the same.
Still, Google responded to MPAA's request that the court reject the amicus brief and argued that it was not interested in the results of the case itself, i.e. whether Hotfile lost or won, but rather in the correct interpretation of the law and that the verdict did not have a chilling effect on the online ecosystem.
"Google’s aim in seeking to participate in this case is to underscore the importance of the Court’s decision to a wide array of legitimate and socially beneficial Internet services, and to the overall climate of free expression online," Google wrote.
It also pointed out that the MPAA didn't comment much on Google's arguments, but rather criticized the company and its motives.
"It is telling in that regard that Plaintiffs' Opposition does nothing to refute the actual legal and policy arguments in Google’s proposed brief," Google added. "Rather than oppose Google’s arguments on the merits, Plaintiffs try to silence Google."
This is not the first time Google has intervened in a case like this. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for it to oppose copyright maximalists as it's trying to get more deals with movie studios, recording labels and so on.