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
Does he call his team of lawyers "Hogan's Heroes"?
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.
One of the MPAA's executives was quoted as saying, "HooooooGAN!," while holding onto his monacle.
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.
No wonder he doesn't want to admit to downloading it, that movie sucked! I bet he doesn't even have the DVD.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
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.
Looks like they accidentaly picked on someone who's got some money. Don't you hate it when that happens?
My work here is dung.
that say that the MPAA will just drop it and move on. I dont think you understand...this guy has the means and it only takes one like him to make the fight stick. I know that when a guy like this decides its worth MILLIONS of his own money hes pretty determined to see it through. I hope he c0ckpunches these a$$hats but good!
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
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.
For anyone who wants to keep up with the story, Shawn Hogan is blogging the story at http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/category/law/.
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?
On the other hand, if he effectively counter sues for defamation of character and/or some other damages done to him by their abusive litigation practices and sets a precedent for others it could open some doors.
How do you even begin to quantify the damage done to his reputation? He's got Meet the Fockers on DVD! And now the whole world knows about it!
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.
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
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.
Note that a number of scholars not only say that this should be a moral right, but go further and question the entire notion of "intellectual property" having value to society. For instance, Stephan Kinsella has written against intellectual property, and in Brian Martin's book Information Liberation he simialrly argues against the existence of "IP". These are but a few examples. In the debate about the "ethics of intellectual property" there are many scholars on both sides.
Perhaps what you meant (although not exactly what you said) was that no respected lawyer would argue that it is legal to download a copy based on already owning a copy. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem so far-fetched a defence to claim that since you already bought a copy, and could have made a copy for your own personal use under fair-use, you simply downloaded a copy for convenience. If this use doesn't limit the copyright-holder's market, then it may not be judged infringement. At the very least I can imagine a lawyer using such an argument for a client... although of course in the end it's up to the judge to decide the merit of the argument.
Her is /.ers chance to put their money where their mouth is.
You can:
1. Buy their software here: http://www.digitalpoint.com/products/
2. Review and recommend their software.
They sell: data wizard, home inspection, isp billing domain management and radius server.
It should not be difficult to drive a few $millions in sales to them.
Consider using this for your own networks:
Name Stalker 1.2
Tool for managing your domains and monitor domains that you want. For Macintosh and Windows
or
Men & Mice Products
3 out of 4 DNS servers are incorrectly setup... find and fix problems with any DNS server. They carry Men & Mice's full line of DNS server and diagnostic tools. For Macintosh and Windows.
"Fix it"
Man, I do not want to see what the girls at your school looked like...
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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.
Fessing up to the RIAA claims: $2,500
Fighting the suit: $100,000
Good PR and being the hero of the DRM-free world:
No, I'm not finishing this, I don't have the money to fight out the ensuing Mastercard law suit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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!
The article very clearly states that he allegedly used Bittorrent. So...he WAS uploading.
I notice this because I have watched "the scene" for going on 20 years and I have yet to ever see a single case of ANYONE being prosecuted for only downloading. In 100% of the cases, the defendant is accused of distributing copyrighted materials. And distributing = upload. You aren't distributing if you are downloading only. And the (legal) distinction is very very important.
Are you guys paying attention? There is a lesson to be learned here.
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.
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.
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.