Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CEO Shawn Hogan Takes on MPAA

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-long-till-it-stops dept.

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.'"

10 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. Prediction by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Prediction by Danse · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      That's what they're saying now. Give it a couple months. They'll probably drop it quietly after everyone has forgotten about it.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    2. Re:Prediction by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I must admit, if they do go through with it, it'll be a hell of a lot more interesting than SCO. ;^)

      And just like them, they'll have no evidence that proves anything. Whether an IP address from a log from a P2P search bot is enough to convince a judge of the merit of the case... well, that's the interesting part.

      --
      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
    3. Re:Prediction by TechForensics · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They can't drop the case if the defendant files a counterclaim. Or if they do, they're still in court on the counterclaim. If Hogan wants to teach them a lesson, he'll make sure his counterclaim litigates all of the issues they don't want litigated, including some they'd be forced to litigate if they actually took someone all the way to court.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  2. Fight the Good Fight by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. That's Not What I Want by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I admire your generosity, feel it is a little misplaced. I think he can afford to defend himself. It seems to me that you would be doing much more good by finding some regular joe that lives from paycheck to paycheck that is being harrassed by the MPAA or RIAA and donating to their defense.
    I don't think it's misplaced. Every case I've seen so far has been from someone folding under the MPAA or RIAA. I don't want to support that. I don't want to support money that came from an out of court settlement. I want the justice system to take a look at itself and really reconsider what the MPAA is doing to people. I want judges to stop handing out fines because the MPAA lawyers tell them the right things. I want to support the people that stand up to it. I don't care if he's a CEO or peon grunt with no cash, I'm going to support the person pushing for reform. I'm not going to support the person who just pays the obscene fine because they want to avoid the trial and lawyers. I want to support this guy if he's willing to bring the lawyers and cast doubt on the MPAA.
    --
    My work here is dung.
  4. This will not go to court. by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  5. Re:Extortion fee? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:class action by dr_dank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  7. Re:You can own meet the fockers in 10 minutes by punkr0x · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.