Slashdot Mirror
Paramount Sues Ohio Man For $100,000
ematic writes "A hapless tech-novice finds himself in a US$100,000 lawsuit with Paramount Pictures for allegedly uploading the movie, Coach Carter, to eDonkey. Paramount had the police seize his four computers, but nothing was found. The tech-novice maintains his innocence, and contends that he is a victim of a drive-by upload. According to the ChannelCincinnati story, the victim 'is either a slick film pirate or an unwitting victim of someone who fits that description.'"
... what, like Johnny Dep?
A tech novice with 4 computers?
Er... someone just broke in and left them here. What are those things anyway? I thought they were modern art.
Paramount has looked at all four computers in Lee's home, alleging he had one of them cleaned to erase evidence. The company has filed a federal lawsuit against the Blue Ash man.
Movie companies have the right to look at all the computers in your house, because you allegedly commited *copyright infringement*.
Wow.
If he keeps a lot of old machines around it's not that unreasonable.
One computer and three coffee holders...
The news article is short on facts. So, what's this guy's motivation for uploading a movie to the internet? Did they even establish that he possesses the movie or a copy of it? Did he admit to such possession? What about his computer that was supposedly "cleaned"--what makes them think so, and how can they prove it? And, one might ask, how can they establish that this alleged uploading cost them $100,000.
There are a lot of unanswered questions here. This is typical of the big media companies now, just like the Mafia: shake down the little people and get the word out that you should toe the line and pay your protection money, or we'll get you.
I do agree that circumstantial evidence seems to suggest he's a bit more tech savvy than one might think, but on the other hand, a tech-savvy person can also get their network broken into or their password stolen. Basically, this company doesn't have a leg to stand on. Maybe that's why they're shaking him down for so much money, to make him feel he has no choice but to settle.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
1) Is anyone else extremely troubled by the following line from the article "A DVD that retails for $21.99 could cost a local man more than $100,000,".
Seriously? $100,000? Quick math tells me that he would have had to share the movie 4,547 and 1/2 times to have shared enough copies to equal that price tag. I get the idea of a deterent but man. Side note even if the film was compressed to around 700 megs or so (to fit on a CD) that would take 3,183,265 and some change megabyes of bandwidth (3 terabytes if my late nite mind is still working at all) to share that file that many times. Seems a little unlikely the punishment fits the crime.
2) Isn't there a burden of proof on the prosecution in this case? Don't they have to show he was the one responsible for uploading the file? If someone steals my car then commits a drive by shooting, I can't be held responsible, can I? To me, having an open wireless access point seems perfectly reasonable (if that is your preference) and it would seem to be a tough sell to get a judge to fine this guy when there's no evidence he did anything wrong and he can produce a line of reasonable doubt.
I'm not up to date on case law in the US, so maybe I'm wrong but seems really shaky at first glance.
What sickens me here is far more serious offenses than this go ignored if reported by your average citizen. I know countless people who've been the victims of theft or internet fraud, and even with names and addresses of the perps they haven't had any action taken, just another report going in the file bin.
There really is no such concept in civil copyright infringement cases. Remember, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. So long as it is even slightly more likely than not that the person with the WAP did it, as opposed to some mysterious other person, that is sufficient proof that he did do it. It's criminal trials prosecuted by the government that use the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the standard used here.
Additionally, courts are aware that defendants may engage in behavior, knowing what the outcome is likely to be. Willful blindness, such as you suggest, is pretty obvious and does not help people get off the hook.
It's possible that you are thinking of the legal system as a mechanism that is not intelligent, and can be gotten around through cleverness. That is not the case. People are involved in the system at every step, and often they are more clever than you, and have a dim view of amateurs trying to manipulate them. Basically, if you would see through such a ploy, or if you think other intelligent people would, you should expect that your opponents in a legal battle would.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I find it bizarre that, just because certain people are not fans of the concept of intellectual property as it applies to movie downloads, they automatically assume that someone who is accused of breaking these laws is innocent.
I find it bizarre that you would assume he is guilty. What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? If he is guilty, let the evidence speak to that fact. The burden should be on the prosecution to prove that he in fact did commit the crime.
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
I hadn't heard of this movie until this story. Further proof that piracy helps the movie industry.
I have 5 networked computers at home. My WAP's security is a bit shaky. I sometimes "clean" computers. This is not enough information to determine if he did it. I would like to think the prosecutor have more information that we are not privy to.
This guy I know has a lot of guns. He also makes a lot of his own ammo. Recently, he *gasp* cleaned his pistol. Clearly he is hiding evidence and he is the killer we are looking for.
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
Knowing the MPAA/RIAA and their tactics, the definition of "four computers" was probably more like:
He should count himself lucky if they didn't take his cell phone and wristwatch.
What I'm curious about is this: How the hell did Paramount have the police seize four of his computers? IANAL, but last time I checked, that would have required a search warrant obtained by a judge with probable cause that he commited a crime. Even assuming that they went through that trouble, it would be law enforcement officers who would investigate the computers, not Paramount. But TFA specifically says, "Paramount has looked at all four computers in Lee's home..." Hmmm...
I figure the more likely scenario is that Paramount told the guy, "If you let us have your computers, we won't sue you." The guy, not being a lawyer and thinking that was a good deal, said, "Okay," then erased one of his hard drives, since he was at least smart enough to know that if Paramount found what they were looking for they would have sued him anyway. (Or maybe he's innocent and just didn't want them to see his downloaded porn collection; either way doesn't matter.) Then Paramount, mad, sued him anyway.
The guy needs to go get a really lawyer pronto. Whether he's innocent or guilty, Paramount is going to do their best to screw him, and personally, even if he's guilty, I hope he comes out of this clean. Not because I think that sharing files illegally is okay, but becuase they (Paramount) are using crooked tactics that are much worse than the crimes this guy may or may not have committed.
Dude, I'm a 3rd year computer science student, I know how to network 4 computers (I've got 3 at my disposal right now), set up a high speed connection and use wifi... but if someone told me to make my network secure, I wouldn't even know where to start. Well, I suppose Step 1 would be pulling up Google, but I'd still be out of my depth -- all I know about networks (beyond what I need to know to get through a basic network setup wizard) is that they have layers and... uh... stuff. Something about connecting things... and sending packets that look kinda like mRNA when you draw them. And opening sockets has something to do with it as well. I can do that in C.
In any case, the guy may still be guilty, but I'm just saying that basic knowledge of some aspects of computing does not necessarily mean that he has ANY knowledge of network security, and he may well consider himself a novice in part because of his lack of knowledge in that area.
Trust me. I know a couple guys with a bunch of computers each I wouldn't trust around any of my machines if they were on fire. I figure it is the modern equivalent to having several cars on blocks in front of your trailer home.
I think the moral here is that the argument/alibi for excusable irresponsibility because the network was unsecured probably isn't working so well.
Curious really, as you can't haul in the householder for murder because someone in "that house" killed someone... The law demands proof that the specific person did the specific crime. In fact there have been cases that have collapsed because 2 suspects both pointed to each other, and no proof could be found to nail it to one or the other.
Amazing how the law bends when huge corporations are involved...
Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the paranoid!
At this point, I really think that "The government is running amok".
About 5 months ago, I had a knock on my door by the "Drug TaskForce". They informed me that they had a warrant to search my house, and had been given an anonymous tip. I was a "Black-tar heroin dealer", they claimed. They had about 20 people, they searched my place end to end, brought the dog through, looking clearly dissapointed (I don't even drink).. and in the end, they said, "Well, we have to take your computers to look for activity on there". I work from home. When they seized my machines, my company lost 2 weeks of work right there.. I had to hire an attorney to get my PC's back, and in the end it was 4 months before I had my machines returned to me. I took them directly to the local computer shop so I would have a witness when I powered them on, and sure enough, one of them was completely hosed. They'd probably plugged in their diagnostic machine backwards or some crap.. The motherboard needed replacing. When I informed them that they broke my machine, they started threatening that they found a couple mp3's on my machine.. If I shutup about the whole ordeal, they wouldn't come after me for the mp3's. I said, um, those mp3's were ripped from a CD I own.. That's perfectly legal, and not even a circumvention of the DMCA. Well, I got the shaft. Unless you're willing to sue the government in a 1983 suit, you're totally out of luck.
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
You're talking about criminal court, where there has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". This case is in civil court, which is just a "preponderance of the evidence". I think this one will go in favor of the defendant, the only evidence Paramount has is the IP address, which can easily be shown on unsecure wireless to be very unreliable for accuracy. They couldn't find any corroborating evidence on the computers. Paramount should have dropped it, bet you it's just lawyers wanting to get a paycheck for pursuing a case
The universe is held together with duct tape and karma. What goes around, comes around, and gets stuck to your forehead.