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.'"
Hey I admire your support of this cause, I would do the same, however he is worth MILLIONS so really there is no need for him. He is the ideal person to take the MPAA to court because he has as much weight in the courtroom to throw around as the MPAA. I only hope that this doesn't end being dropped and no precedent happening.
One correctly spelt word: barratry.
Go Shawn Hogan. Get these crooks to tell us "Where's the proof?"
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
What if he loses?
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
IANAL.
It's very difficult for lower classes to participate now. They can get a public defender if they're brought to criminal court, but not in a civil suit. They'll have to hire a lawyer. In addition, the MPAA knows that drawing out the suit as long as possible is in their interest, and will attempt to do so, until the defendant is simply out of money and can't affort to pay their lawyers any further, forcing them into a settlement.
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 might well be mistaken, but I think if his assertion that he owns the DVD was true BEFORE any alleged download occurred, then it removes any wrongdoing from him. Let me explain: The only laws I can think of at work here apply are the DMCA (that is, to have a movie in a downloadable form, one would first have to "circumvent a protection device" by breaking CSS) and laws regarding distribution/sale of copyrighted material without consent. One could certainly make the case the the person who OFFERED the movie for download likely did both of those things, it seems that someone who owns the movie on DVD might well have done neither, irrespective of whether the alleged download even occurred.
My former employer bought software from Shawn way back in the day and he's not your typical suit that you think of when you hear CEO. He's pretty much a typical Slashdot type guy who lived the dream by making it big writing the best software available for a certain industry. So for anyone who thinks this is big fish fighting big fish, you are wrong. Go Shawn!
I am not a lawyer and this is a civil case, not a criminal case. The MPAA does not have to "prove" their case, both sides present the facts as they know them to the judge or jury and the outcome is based upon "preponderance of evidence". The whole winner/loser can be a sliding scale. If the judge or jury rules in favor of the MPAA, he would have to pay whatever the judge or jury deems proper.
Of course the MPAA is going to try to show that they should be awarded beaucoup dollars -- an amount that is guaranteed to make normal people shit all over themselves. It is entirely possible that the jury could rule in the MPAA's favor and then award the MPAA one dollar. Even if the MPAA prevails, unless the MPAA were actually awarded a HUGE sum of money, it is hard to tell if the MPAA would gain any sort of pysychological or legal advantage in subsequent cases.
That makes the assumption that the users at the other end of the transfer were downloading the file illegally. What if they also owned a copy of the movie? They are not the ones on trial. IANAL, but I would think we would have to presume innocence on those other people who have not even had the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. The other downloaders are not on trial, just this one guy. And thus, because we must presume their innocence. If they were legally downloading the file, we cannot condemn his actions of uploading the file.
Of course that all assumes that downloading a file to make a backup of something you own is actually legal. I have no idea about the status of that one.
"An unlawful act or fraudulent breach of duty on the part of a ship's master or crew, going against, and in conflict with the interests of the ship's or cargo's owner. For example; selling cargo and susequently claiming it was lost at sea."
Nah, it wasn't lost, it was those damn pirates
Seriously, however, you hardly ever see action against cases of barratry actually succeed. How often have you seen those damn class action legal commercials, soliciting victims of this industrial byproduct, or that drug that causes liver failure? Those are just sophisitcated barratry, yet you see them year after year.
Like most laws of it's kind, it's generally used by big business against individuals. It'd be interesting to see it done the other way, but I'm not holding my breath. Say what you will about the RIAA...It is copyright infringment that they're suing people over, and that is against the law. Their data collection methods are hugely unreliable, but they'd have to be proven negligent in court for that to even weigh for barratry.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Courts afford ridiculous leeway to pro se litigants. For an example case, look at Dioguardi v Durning, 139 F 2d 774 (2d Cir. 1944)
,to plaintiff to amend..."
"In his complaint, obviously home drawn, plaintiff attempts to assert a series of grievances against.....the complaint was dismissed by the District Court, with leave, however
"Thereupon plaintiff filed an amended com-plaint, wherein, with an obviously heightened conviction that he was being unjustly treated, he vigorously reiterates his claims...."
"We think that, however inartistically they may be stated, the plaintiff has disclosed his claims..."
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
My understanding of BitTorrent is that different chunks of a download are routed to and temporarily stored for retransmission on the PCs of a number of individuals who have BitTorrent software running, but with each chunk being encrypted so that an individual has no idea of what's passing through his/her PC.
It would certainly seem that the MPAA would view BitTorrent as a major threat that needs to be cut off at the knees in its infancy.
Could it then be that Hogan's PC was just one of the first in line to the source of the movie, a PC operated by one of the MPAA's stooges, and that the MPAA is trying to establish a legal principle that any participant in a BitTorrent network is guilty of contributory infringement if any chunk of a copyrighted work happens to pass through their PC on its way to the ultimate destination? I.e., that BitTorrent is not the same as a Common Carrier - that participants are responsible for infringement even if they're unaware of it and have no way of becoming aware of it?
If so, then to establish that legal principle they'd have to pick on an individual who was willing and able to defend himself through an expensive court case to its conclusion.
But then this may all be unwarranted speculation and the MPAA just happened to pick on the wrong guy. I guess time will tell.
Courts afford ridiculous leeway to pro se litigants. For an example case, look at Dioguardi v Durning, 139 F 2d 774 (2d Cir. 1944)
If I'm reading that correctly, it was over 60 years ago. I'm guessing that things have changed.
Do you have a different example?
Someone please post his business information and what arenas he operates in. This is the kind of guy I'd like to know about to do business. Someone with balls and is willing to stand up to extortion and blackmail and do what's right. If there's anything I, or the organization I work for needs that this guy or his company can offer, I'd like to stand behind him with my patronage.
SCREW THE RIAA AND THE MPAA. They're a bunch of crooks and assholes who haven't had an original idea since shaking down school kids for their lunch money.
This is the information age. Things change. To paraphrase the immortal words of Carly Fiorina-- those fucktards don't have a god-given right to monopolies anymore.
They weren't out there crying when the information workers were losing their jobs overseas-- they were _sending_ jobs overseas. They weren't crying when the factories shut down and the jobs went to factories overseas-- they were _sending_ the jobs overseas. Now its their turn. What they sell is just bits and there is NO appreciable distrubution cost anymore. They want to keep their high-priced usary models and fuck the rest of us up the ass. No more. Its time for them to DIE like the dinosaurs they are and for new business models to emerge.
The transmission however, anyone could eventually learn how to replace/repair their transmission and gather all of the tools necessary to do the job. It's just at some point, their time becomes more valuable than the money it would take to have someone who knows right away how to do the job fix it (or even more valuable than the time used up by simply not having a working car). The law is like a very intricate transmission, you could learn everything that applies and how to defend yuorself but the courtroom is more like (lets stretch this even more here)...a race. You could fix the car and the mechanic could fix the car but when you've got a judge bearing down on you, the trained professional is going to be quick and accurate and move ahead at leaps and bounds over the person who is learning as they go and constantly pulling out a manual.
Bottles.
But through the ballot box I think it can, at least in Europe.
If somebody here knows Mr. Hogan personally, please feel free to direct his attention to the Swedish political party Piratpartiet (The Pirate Party). We are standing for parliament in the September 17 national elections in Sweden, and we have a realistic chance of gaining entry into parliament and securing a position where we hold the balance of power.
If we succeed, we expect to turn the tide not only in Sweden, but eventually in all of Europe.
We could urgently use USD 50.000 to fund the printing of additional ballot papers (which we have to pay for ourselves under the Swedish system), as well as other items. Money goes a very long way in Swedish politics compared to the US, but some is still useful.
I appreciate and respect the fact that people with funds don't want to be approached by strangers begging for money all the time, so we won't be making any attempts to take contact directly.
But if Mr. Hogan - or anybody else - wants to stick it to the MPAA in a way that they'll really feel, he is more than welcome to contact me to discuss the matter. My email address is christian.engstrom@piratpartiet.se
Smaller donations are also very welcome, and can be made via Paypal and other means. For more details, see www.piratpartiet.se
Christian Engström
Vice chairman, Piratpartiet
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
IANAL, but I would think we would have to presume innocence on those other people who have not even had the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. The other downloaders are not on trial, just this one guy. And thus, because we must presume their innocence.
/.ers occasionally theorize would be worthless.
In a civil case, innocence is not presumed. In this case, the RIAA doesn't need to prove that any or all of the other torrent users were illegally downloading; they only need to prove that there's a reasonable chance one of them was illegally downloading. That shouldn't be too difficult.
This is the same reason why the old "Open AP" defense strategy that
Of course, there are dozens of other reasons why the RIAA's case is worthless, and I hope Hogan's lawyers shred them all.
- Making a backup for personal use is legal.
- Due to copy protection measures, I do not have the required technical skills to make a backup copy.
- Since I do not have the required technical skills to make a copy, I am at liberty to hire the services of someone who does (a consultant).
- The consultant does not have to charge me, or even by known to me by name.
- A peer to peer service is one that provides this service for me on a quid pro quo basis; they produce the backup in exchange for the use of some of my bandwidth.
In fact, however, he is defending by saying it wasn't him. I would like to see him take a two-pronged attack, however, saying that it wasn't him and even if it had been (i.e. if the jury does not accept that, in the balance of probability, it was not him) then it would not be illegal for the reasons stated above.I am TheRaven on Soylent News