Slashdot Mirror
CEO Shawn Hogan Takes on MPAA
IAmTheDave writes "Shawn Hogan, CEO of Digital Point Solutions, has found himself on the receiving end of an MPAA lawsuit claiming he downloaded a copy of 'Meet the Fockers' on Bittorrent. Mr. Hogan both denies the charges as well as claims he already owns the movie on DVD. After being asked to pay a $2500 extortion fee, Mr. Hogan lawyered up and has vowed to challenge and help change the MPAA's tactics. 'They're completely abusing the system,' Hogan says. Although expecting to pay well over $100,000 to defend himself, he claims 'I would spend well into the millions on this.'"
Well, if you bothered to RTFA it seems that the MPAA is doing exactly the opposite. The head of their antipiracy division is openly saying they're looking forward to a trial and verdict next summer.
If he got damages it could. It would establish a roadmap if not a legal precedent. If he gets real damages out of the MPAA you'll find lawyers lining up to take clients being sued by the MPAA.
For anyone who wants to keep up with the story, Shawn Hogan is blogging the story at http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/category/law/.
further informative modpoints for:n d-loeb-mpaa-extortion.htmlf fers-to-settle-again.htmlt roying-the-movie-industry.html
Relevant posts!!
http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/2005/11/loeb-a
http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/2006/04/mpaa-o
http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/2006/06/im-des
+5, Truth
The Wikipedia article only says:
... the two had no formal post-secondary school education, and few financial resources. Furthermore, they were denied legal aid by the courts. Although the pair were deemed no legal match for McDonald's enormous legal assets, they represented themselves, receiving much free legal advice, and doing enormous amounts of research in their spare time.
however I recall reading in a Sunday broadsheet at the time that the case dragged on for a couple of years (I think that was just the first case!) and that the two represented themselves in court for 8 hours a day, then spent several hours of an evening preparing their briefs for the next day.
Faced with legal action by a corporate behemoth like McDonalds, there was really no other affordable way to defend themselves, and I am in awe of their commitment - 3 other defendants were named in the initial proceedings, but they retracted the statements in the disputed pamphlet and apologised for its content. I believe that Steel & Morris gave up their jobs as a postman & as a gardener in because they refused to back down.
IIRC none of the defendants were the authors of the leaflet - the group they belonged to was very ad-hoc, meeting weekly in a pub, and the court case was brought a couple of years after the leaflet had been distributed; Steel or Morris was quoted in the article I read as saying they didn't remember who did write it, as it was only one of many activities the group undertook. This seems to me to quite a reasonable assertion after two years, considering that someone might've only attended only a few of the meetings over a period of a few months - you might well remember faces but be unable to put names to them, and be unable to provide contact details for Mick or Joe.
Stroller.
The article very clearly states that he allegedly used Bittorrent. So...he WAS uploading.
I notice this because I have watched "the scene" for going on 20 years and I have yet to ever see a single case of ANYONE being prosecuted for only downloading. In 100% of the cases, the defendant is accused of distributing copyrighted materials. And distributing = upload. You aren't distributing if you are downloading only. And the (legal) distinction is very very important.
Are you guys paying attention? There is a lesson to be learned here.