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.'"
My guess: They'll drop the suit against this guy, but continue to threaten those that don't have the means to fight back.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I personally would like to extend a helping hand to Shawn. If he wants to take this to court, I would like to pay him a simple $10 through Paypal for fighting the good fight. I've given the same donations to Slashdot and many many opensource projects (especially those on SourceForge) that have made my life easier.
I would like to live in a world where I'm not worried about some organization of rich bastards strong arming citizens out of hard earned cash. There have been several cases so far where people have been charged with little or no evidence. The methods by which they obtain their evidence is even shadier.
If you're reading this, Shawn Hogan, please leave some contact info so we can donate small sums of money to aid in your defense.
My work here is dung.
The point is that if he can force something like a class action, then maybe we can all jump in and get some cash back from the MPAA, even if you don't have enough money to defend yourself.
stuff |
He won't get a chance to 'defend himself' unless he decides to counter-sue. The MPAA will simply drop the case and move on to a less aggressive victim.
I'd much rather him take on the RIAA as they seem to be the more aggressive of the two when it comes to extortion schemes. The MPAA, for all it's faults, doesn't seem to be as gleefully entertained by the prospect of suing the pants off of everyone.
On behalf of the little guy everywhere... Give 'em hell, Shawn.
1 voice in a sea of voices
He'll have to spend tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, in order to avoid paying a $2500 penalty. The principles are trumped by the pragmatics.
So, where are the politicians willing to try to put a stop to this? Let me guess, being paid protection money by the MPAA.
This is no different than con artists fixing local officials to get out of jail free.
Okay? Having the thing doesn't give you a right to download a copy. I've yet to see a respected scholar in the field of IP law say anything like that. The justifications (fair use, generally, under the umbrella of time-shifting and/or backup media) don't hold up under analogy; you're creating a new copy of someone else's thing, not your own, and it's not fair use because you do not know the person.
But, uh, sure. Extortion. Whatever. If he did (and we don't know if he did or did not) do this, than he'll likely get smacked for it. While the cartel's methods are utterly ruthless and uncalled-for, that doesn't diminish their legal rights.
Once he really shows some fight in him they will drop it and it will vanish.
The more I see of their operations the more I think the MPAA and RIAA operate very much like local traffic cops. They want to give lots of tickets, and specifically to the people who will just pay the fines and move along. Then hoping that the "watch out, you could get a ticket" mentality will help them get the desired end result.
On the other hand, if he effectively counter sues for defamation of character and/or some other damages done to him by their abusive litigation practices and sets a precedent for others it could open some doors. But then it's still up to others to get lawyers to do it. Make it where the counter suit is profitable enough and lawyers could start making money on the shark-like "we only get paid if you get paid" approach. But you have to put enough blood into the water to draw them out.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
My work here is dung.
Unless the MPAA are 100% certain that they're going to win. They don't really believe that a pirated movie costs them $2500. They do know that these threats have a huge effect as a deterrent. If they lose the case, they'll lose the deterrent. If they drop the case (after costing Mr. Hogan a modest amount in legal costs), they'll retain the deterrent.
In what way is it in the MPAA's interest to see this all the way to the court?
If his company offers a tangable product, I would be glad to buy it, in a show of my support. Frankly, this could be a fantastic advert towards me, an man who purchases either what I percieve as a quality product, or of those with an honerable intent.
oh wait....he's still a big guy.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I don't see how ownership of the original media serves as "proof" that he didn't download it.
.torrent of MtF, but rather seeded a .torrent of the ISO of the DVD he ripped?
Besides, with BitTorrent, you upload chunks of the torrent even as you download the file. What if he didn't download the
What if he purchased the DVD after viewing the downloaded torrent? It's still an unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work, even if it did end up resulting in a sale that benefits the Plaintiff... if they want to sue because to them the principle of control is more important than the short-term profit of a unit sale, who are we to question such prioritization?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Check out the new documentary ALTERANTIVE FREEDOM to hear RMS rip the MPAA! (He also rips the RIAA for kicks!)
http://alternativefreedom.org/
It's too bad the thousands and thousands of people who have been "shaken-down" by the evil MPAA didn't have the money to defend themselves. Maybe someday people will realize they need to boycott the MPAA (and RIAA) and their affiliates in order to take back control of entertainment and their government at the same time.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? I'd like to hear what proof the MPAA has that he downloaded this movie, before I worry about whether or not it was legal of him to download it. The "ownership" is far from irrelevent... it's him saying, "Look, I already bought your damn movie, what motive do I have to download it?" He has no burden to prove he bought it, they have to prove he downloaded it.
Is he kidding? If he wins he's obligated to seek reimbursement for his attorney's fees.
Also - just because you own a particular brand of car stereo doesn't mean you can go out and steal it too.
I wish people would stop drawing such ridiculous analogies. You can't steal a copyrighted work by making a copy of it anymore than you can steal a person's soul by taking their picture.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
I'm waiting for them to have sued enough people that when they sue another person... the entire jury is full of their victims... That is when they will fail.
Give 'em hell, Mr. Hogan!
Besides, with BitTorrent, you upload chunks of the torrent even as you download the file. What if he didn't download the .torrent of MtF, but rather seeded a .torrent of the ISO of the DVD he ripped?
I could be wrong but I think it's possible to throttle your upstream to 0. Whether this will actually "work" on bittorrent is beyond me.
I don't see how ownership of the original media serves as "proof" that he didn't download it.
The claim is he didn't download it, he bought it. Why would you bother to download something you bought? Well, there are some good reasons but still, to average joe jury it would seem silly.
The thing about cases like this, it's just as likely that he did download it as if he didn't download it. Even on the best of days all they have is an IP address, which may be dynamic, which may or may not have accurate logs, which may or may not have been transcribed correctly.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
If your native tongue is other than English, then ignore this. But if you're a native English speaker you should have proofread your piece before posting it. "Mr. Hogan both denies the charges as well as claims he already owns the movie on DVD." What you wrote says that Hogan denies that he owns the movie on DVD. The article says Hogan says he does own the movie on DVD. So you should have written something like "Mr. Hogan denies the charges and claims he already owns the movie on DVD."
And please, save the "grammar Nazi" posts. If you can appreciate that writing clear code is worthwhile you should agree that expresssing yourself well in English is also worthwhile.
Insert witty sig here.
The head of their antipiracy division is openly saying they're looking forward to a trial and verdict next summer.
The head of the anti-piracy division is given incentives to bring cases to trial, etc. It's the other executives in the organization that will look at the potential costs involved for the MPAA and decide to throw in the towel.
When Metallica sued Napster, it wasn't Lars Ulrich's idea. He's an utter moron. Instead, it was the record label's lawyers who convinced Lars to pony up the seed money to launch the suit against Napster. Because Lars is stupid, he convinced the band to go forward with suing Napster. Other entities hadn't sued because the legal outlook for a victory was doubtful. Metallica's lawyers had a client with more money than brains, so they were able to forge ahead. In a civil case like that, if Metallica were to lose, they would have had to pay their own lawyers AND Napster's legal fees. Same with this case. Either way, Metallica's lawyers would get paid for a lot of hours on the case. Same with the MPAA's lawyers.
In the Napster case, dumb luck prevailed and Metallica won. In this case, I agree with the GP. The business managers at the MPAA are going to see the conclusion pretty soon and throw in the towell on this lawsuit.
The other reason they'll abandon this lawsuit is to avoid the risk of setting a legal precedent. If this guy pushes the case to a victory, then it'll mean the MPAA won't be able to threaten the same legal action against other suspected movie downloaders. Even a newbie lawyer would be able to get these cases dismissed right off the bat by citing the decision in this case.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Or wait, I used to have a license. So I can just bittorrent a new copy, right? Kidding of course.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's not "proof", but it's certainly a nice bit of evidence to support his claim.
Besides, you don't seem to realize that DOWNLOADING FROM A P2P NETWORK ISN'T ILLEGAL ON IT'S OWN... If he OWNED the movie already, and decided to download a BACKUP copy of it, HE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING ILLEGAL AT ALL.
Good... Then let the MPAA just TRY to PROVE that someone who was DOWNLOADING it from him, was doing so illegally. Good luck with that.
Well then that would be a completely different situation. You, however, are just speculating, with no evidence at all to back-up this senario. I doubt the MPAA is any better.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Granted we don't know if he 'purchased' the DVD after he downloaded it via bit-torrent, or if he actually downloaded anything for that matter, but lets say we give him the benefit of the doubt and state he purchased it prior.
So he legally purchased a DVD for home use. And later he downloads said movie to his PC. Perhaps he didn't have the tools or software to put or watch the movie on his PC. Is that still considered home use of the DVD content? I'm not talking about distribution here, which is what the case will be about. I'm talking about the license of a copyrighted work in your own home. Under fair use, as I understand it, I can watch/rip a DVD to as many computers in my home as I wish. Thats what fair use is. Should not having the tools to watch/rip YOUR PURCHASED DVD on your PC restrict your ability to the CONTENT EQUIVALENT of your purchased DVD for your fair use rights??? Even if he did download it off a known illegal distribution network?? If downloading is all he did, and not redistibuting it to others, how is it illegal if he has a license for the CONTENT being downloaded??
You can own a license of a distrubted content medium but that license only extends to that of the original media it came on?? Isn't that violating fair use??
This will be an interesting case to watch, if the MPAA doesn't fold up its tent!!
If I own the full DVD, why would I download a rip that is of reduced quality/content? I already have the whole thing. He doesn't have to prove anything, he just has to convince a jury that he's more right than the MPAA is. In this case, it means he has to cast enough doubt on their arguments that a jury finds they are without sufficient merit. Well, one of the ways is to show he owns a copy of the movie in question. A normal person is going to wonder why he'd download something he already owns.
Remember this isn't a case of the MPAA having iron-clad proof and him having to find a technicality out of it. this is a case of the MPAA having exceedingly weak evidence, and him just having to provide a perponderance of counter evidence. He (or rather his lawyers) are going to do that by throwing out every thing that makes the MPAA's case look bad. They'll question the veracity of the logs, the credibility of the company that found this (the MPAA contracts it out) the reliability of the information from a BT tracker, the ISP's records, and so on. They'll do everything they can to make the jury doubt that he downloaded the movie and that includes pointing out the fact that he already owns a copy.
Or rather, I should say they would if this ever goes to trial, which it won't. The worst thing in the world that could happen to the MPAA/RIAA with these shotgun lawsuit tactics is for someone to fight and win, espically in a high profile case. That establishes case law which establishes precident. Makes subsequent defenses much easier since people can just point back and say "Well the court found that the logs presented in case X were insufficient so the same thign should apply here." Courts have a lot of respect for case law.
What will happen is the MPAA will talk tough while it's in the spotlight, and then once the public has forgotten, they'll drop the case.
http://www.eff.org/
:)
That's the request on his blog anyway -- he doesn't need the money, so if you want to donate, send it to eff. They'll be happy for it.
Your 'what-ifs' are interesting ideas... but according to him, he didn't download the movie. So, unless you can prove otherwise, I think he has a pretty valid case. Stating that he owns the DVD doesn't serve as proof that he didn't download it, but it seems to eliminate the incentive, don't you agree? Anyone with enough money to fight the MPAA's lawyers has enough money, and probably enough sense, to buy the DVD instead of downloading it.
The claim that he already owns the DVD is a claim. It doesn't refute any evidence (if any) that the MPAA may have, though. If they have server logs from Hogan's ISP, or from some server he allegedly downloaded from, and those logs can be established as reliable, which is itself fairly doubtful, owning the DVD isn't going to do him a bit of good.
One can certainly download a DVD that one also happens to own. If the police arrest me for auto theft, pointing out that I already own a car won't by itself get the prosecution off my back, especially if they have evidence that indicates that I may have allegedly stolen a car.
The argument that taking any car that I happen to like and using it as my own ought to be the law of the land also is not going to work as a defense.
Neither will the argument that cars are too damn expensive and car companies are greedy.
I'm not a fan of copyright or of the MPAA, but beating them takes better arguments than this. Mr. Hogan may well get the case thrown out of court, and if he does more power to him, but even if he wins this case there's still a host of larger issues that will remain unaddressed.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
This problem is the result of electing attorneys to public office, specifically legislative positions. Lawyers want to make themselves as much work as possible, and by complicating procedures, increasing legalese, and promoting litigious liability, an attorney is now needed to do pretty much anything other than to paint your house. It is insane.
Read the US Constitution sometime. It is written that any layman can understand it. Now go and read any piece of modern legislation. It is NOT as clear!
Libertas in infinitum