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.
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.
On behalf of the little guy everywhere... Give 'em hell, Shawn.
1 voice in a sea of voices
Okay? Having the thing doesn't give you a right to download a copy
why not? its just the same as backing it up yourself, only someone else did the hard work for you.
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?
That's not the extent of the issue. Exposing the methods used by **AA to gather this "evidence" is equally important, and the legality of these methods deserves some scrutiny.
Beware of the Leopard.
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.
They wouldn't have to. In this country, the person bringing the suit/charges is supposed to prove THEIR point. If they can't do that, you can come to court and draw funny pictures all day if you like -- they (shouldn't) win.
Yes, so the lawyers walk away with ungodly sums of money and the settlement class gets a shiny nickel. I'm all for the MPAA having to cough up, but I cringe when I think about who that directly benefits and who gets next to nothing.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
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.
I'd like it if this was the way it worked. If there was an affordable but annoying cost to piracy (say $50-100), and easy means for the industry to obtain it, and an easy way to appeal against it, then piracy would be discouraged, the media cartels would be able to fund their anti-piracy efforts, and the pirates wouldn't get nearly as much sympathy as some poor schmuck being threatened by a zillion dollar lawsuit.
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!
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.
Just junk food for thought...
Is he kidding? If he wins he's obligated to seek reimbursement for his attorney's fees.
People seem to say that him saying he owns it already is rebutting the fact that he downloaded it, rather than the fact that he was justified. Not only does it serve both purposes, he would be crazy to argue solely justification if he wants to win. Just as you can give multiple forms of a claim in the complaint, you can give multiple forms of defense against that complaint. So he is saying:
With regard to the charge of copyright violation,
(1) I did not do it, as evidenced by my ownership of a legally-obtained copy of the movie in question;
(2) Or in the alternative, I did download the copy, but since I own a legally-obtained copy of the movie in question, my infringement qualifies as fair use and I was therefore justified in downloading it
And, as I said in one response, court isn't just going in and flinging things at a jury, trying to convince them. The jury is given the law and has to apply what happened to it. If the instructions say "If he downloaded a copy from the internet he violated copyright" with no other instruction for a fair use defense, the jury is generally going to say he's in violation, regardless of whatever "The Man is out to get you" idea his lawyers get in through argument.
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."
Er. Owning it does give you the right, seeing as you've already paid for it.
Morally, but not legally. Copyright law gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to control copying. Fair use offers some exceptions, but the exceptions are limited. It generally doesn't include downloading from the internet and most certainly doesn't include uploading.
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!
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.
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!