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.'"

4 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not gonna happen by mrsev · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One correctly spelt word: barratry.

  2. Standard of proof? by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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?"

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  3. Re:Prediction by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. Is the situation as clear cut as it seems? by cwsulliv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.