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.'"

Comments

Re:Not gonna happen

[mrsev]

One correctly spelt word: barratry.

Standard of proof?

[quokkapox]

What is the standard of proof required in cases like these? Have any actually gone to trial? My understanding is that a British ISP basically told the European equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA to GTFO unless they could provide convincing evidence of the accused users downloading specific files at specific times. I've also heard that all the basically have is a screenshot of the "infringing content" along with a hash of some sort. That's not enough to convince me if I were a judge. The hash could be the result of a collision. On some of these networks you can try to download something called "ubuntu-5.10-intel.iso" and end up with an infringing copy of "Meet the Fokkers" because the filenames can be changed. If he had wifi, maybe his network got cracked. Maybe he was running a tor exit link. All of these establish plenty of doubt as to whether he actually deliberately downloaded anything.

Go Shawn Hogan. Get these crooks to tell us "Where's the proof?"

There's another very ugly side to this coin

[bberens]

What if he loses?

Re:Prediction

[TheSpoom]

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.

Then the judge tells him how much he owes the MPAA

[Secrity]

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.

Re:Prediction

[killtherat]

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.

Re:Not gonna happen

[SatanicPuppy]

"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.

Is the situation as clear cut as it seems?

[cwsulliv]

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.

Want to do business with this guy-- he's got balls

[bratwiz]

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.