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?
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!
Go Shawn Hogan. Get these crooks to tell us "Where's the proof?"
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
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.
Is he kidding? If he wins he's obligated to seek reimbursement for his attorney's fees.
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.
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."
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.
got a torrent?
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
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.
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.