Slashdot Mirror
MPAA v. Hogan, or Vice Versa?
Other comments took that defense a bit more seriously, pointing out that "I own the DVD already!" is no ironclad defense against claims of copyright infringement. Junior J. Junior III, for instance, wroteNo wonder he doesn't want to admit to downloading it, that movie sucked! I bet he doesn't even have the DVD.
In response to the desire evident in some comments to see a trial take place and (perhaps) cast doubt on the MPAA's aggressive tactics, reader BigNumber predicts that this is "not gonna happen," writing:I don't see how ownership of the original media serves as "proof" that he didn't download it.
Besides, with BitTorrent, you upload chunks of the torrent even as you download the file. What if he didn't download the .torrent of MtF, but rather seeded a .torrent of the ISO of the DVD he ripped?
What if he purchased the DVD after viewing the downloaded torrent? It's still an unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work, even if it did end up resulting in a sale that benefits the Plaintiff... if they want to sue because to them the principle of control is more important than the short-term profit of a unit sale, who are we to question such prioritization?
Reader Elsimer points out that the odds that Hogan will get a day in court against the MPAA are better than for most people; he has money and determination, as demonstrated in the Zeropaid interview with Hogan from which Elsimer quotes, in which Hogan saysHe 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.
Despite Hogan's personal resources, eldavojohn was one of several who said they'd like to contribute to his cause, writingYep. At this point they have pushed me enough to where I'm going to do whatever I can to keep them from dropping the case. I can't prevent them from dropping it, but I am going to try and force them to go to a full trial. Basically, my lawyers aren't even going to file a motion to dismiss. ... At this point, I don't care what it costs. If they drop it, I will find something to counter with to keep it in court.
Reader toad3k points out that Hogan is "not exactly hiding," and points out the location of Hogan's blog. eldavojohn responded in the same thread to the idea that such support might be "a little misplaced," writingI 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 open source 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.
I'm not going to support the person who just pays the obscene fine because they want to avoid the trial and lawyers. I want to support this guy if he's willing to bring the lawyers and cast doubt on the MPAA.
Several readers predicted that the MPAA would hastily drop legal action against such a determined opponent (TheSpoom's was typical: "My guess: They'll drop the suit against this guy, but continue to threaten those that don't have the means to fight back. ), but as milamber3 points out, according to the article
Reader Danse is skeptical:The head of their anti-piracy division is openly saying they're looking forward to a trial and verdict next summer.
To this, reader TechForensics saysThat's what they're saying now. Give it a couple months. They'll probably drop it quietly after everyone has forgotten about it.
Several readers' comments focused on the question of how those who aren't ready to pay the cost of a lawsuit but who would like to contest the MPAA's legal case against them, and many of these comments speculate on the viability of a pre se (self-representation) defense; as embodied in voice_of_all_reason's comment that "[w]ith a reasonable amount of study on basic law, it shouldn't be that hard at all." Reader schnell disagrees, and offers a few pointed analogies:They can't drop the case if the defendant files a counterclaim. Or if they do, they're still in court on the counterclaim. If Hogan wants to teach them a lesson, he'll make sure his counterclaim litigates all of the issues they don't want litigated, including some they'd be forced to litigate if they actually took someone all the way to court.
Also on the legal front, Squalish makes an important distinction:Describing an intellectual property civil lawsuit against people with law degrees and years of experience like this may just be a little cavalier. Let's try a little substitution here and see how it sounds:
- No, I meant fix your transmission yourself. With a reasonable amount of study on basic automotive engineering, it shouldn't be that hard at all.
- No, I meant perform a root canal on yourself. With a reasonable amount of study ovn basic orthodontics, some local anesthesia and a mirror, it shouldn't be that hard at all.
Finally and usefully, reader shotfeel offers an informative link for those interested in this as well as other MPAA-related cases:They're filing civil lawsuits, which are a different legal category than crimes here in the U.S. One key: Civil law goes on preponderance (51% convinced = hold the defendant liable), so a mere 'reasonable doubt' that you were using your computer is not a defense. They just have to convince a judge that you probably were, rather than proving it.
Thanks to everyone whose comments informed this discussion, especially the readers whose comments are quoted above.For anyone interested, Recording Industry vs The People keeps an eye on many of the RIAA cases in progress.
Hogan... man he was an awesome wrestler, and he was pretty good in that movie with Christopher Plumber, oh and it was funny to see him in Rock... what? Paul Hogan.... Oh, never mind....
There is no way the MPAA will let this go to trial since he is trying to take the offencive on this. What can really come though from him keeping them in court after they drop it? I can see if they bring him to trial they could be asked to show their methods of identifying him. But after they drop it how can this information be requested? I am a legal newb.
One of the times I was happy to be proven wrong by Slashdot, since trying to defend yourself does look like a really bad idea.
:)
Unless there's really another alternative besides paying your protection money to the MPAA that doesn't involve fleeing the country
Yeah, I know, the industry lobbyists on K Street will never allow it. *Sigh*
I know NOTHING, I know NOTHING
Ok I kinda like slashbacks or backspash as this is called. But a backspash on this ONE story without any updates to the trial and whatnot.. Very lame..
I see that backslashes are now ubiquitous on the site. Because slashdot is a news site, backslashes must be news that slashbots enjoy! I know! Lets start having backslashes on backslashes! And then we can even backslash them too! Heck, there is infinite potential here! The slashbots will love this! We have waited too long and suffered too far to keep having to read content!
46487 466780 252994 376409 96920 39622 205366 244315 622115 512361 668040 63608 259203 955314 811176 652718 166330 23922
They are so going to piss off legions of Hulkamaniacs out there by suing Hogan. I hope Hogan grabs the MPAA in a headlock and performs a legal suplex on them!
Go Hulkster!
This is not a flame, and I've perused the FAQ, and I can't seem to find an explanation for the goal of these Backslash stories. What purpose are they meant to serve, and what value do they offer over temporarily browsing a story at +5?
/. editors, I'd rather see more effort elsewhere, rather than a recap of yesterday's news, with no additional opinion or analysis, not including those who comment, added.
I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but I just don't understand these stories. Yes, I know I can block them in my preferences, but I remain optimistic for now. With the (somewhat justifiable) criticism of the
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
...That he's also returning to the ring?
When Paul Hogan goes into court he should play Hull Hogan's theam song "I am a real American." That would be sweet.
If it's dead, you killed it.
if anything... i see this becoming a "key" victory in the mpaa's plan. If he DOES lose it sends a bad signal to all the other judges, and they'll point out that even with all that money hogan has, the "law" still prevailed.even if they do fail, i can see them using the same argument against it. there's no way a company could reasonably fight against a criminial who's willing to go all out to protect himself from the "law"
either way, i think they're going to have the upper hand in this case, not because of money, but because of the evidence. i dont think hogan understands the issue enough, if he makes one out of place comment... it could all be over. either way, it's slander on hogan and a extra little lockpick for the mpaa. i just hope it doesnt go downhill completely.
*thinks of a all-out attack on hogan and reprecussions from it*
*sigh* i hope this works out.
and pardon the spelling, i use my natural form of talking when posting online...
The bottom line is this - the MPAA can prove what IP is listed as the one that downloaded the file. They may even be able to prove that said file is on a particular computer.
But it is unlikely that they can prove who, *exaclty*, downloaded the file.
Bottom line - if you know one of three people committed a murder, they *all* walk b/c that isn't good enough to convict.
The RIAA and MPAA have been running an elaborate legal scam for some time. They've gamed the *expensive* system to force people to just pay their tax.
America is falling apart on more than one front.
The State Attorney Generals are, apparently, bought and paid for.
Protect your freaking citizens from abuse. I feel for their situation, the world changing and all, but they can't just abuse people b/c of it. At least, they shouldn't be able to.
It's Summer. Nothing happening. What time would be better to draw this to the front line?
If possible, let's get the donation thing rolling. I know, he's rich, so the money doesn't matter. And neither do 10 bucks matter to the majority of us. But it's a token that says "me too" in the chorus that cries out against the RIAA peppering innocent people with lawsuits.
Now, when it has enough attention, the media will pick it up. Simply out of self interest. Let's face it, geeks are no target audience. We're few. We tend to think for ourselves. So why bother trying to get the spinning onto us? But the issue of copyright getting way out of hand is not only affecting us. It is a matter that concerns pretty much everyone owning a computer with online access (and as previous lawsuits from the RIAA show us, even people who never touched one).
So the attention is there.
And as soon as media spin is up, politicians will start noticing it. After all, it's an election year, and the campaigns are already running...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Depending on where the suit is brought, the defendant may not have the option of self representation. In some courts self representation is simply not allowed.
I understand what the poster is trying to say, but I think it backfired, because auto repair is easier than many think.
In this case- the manual transmission for my car (which is full-time AWD and has a limited-slip center differential, so it is fairly complex as transmissions go) doesn't require much rocket science. It requires the factory repair manual, a few special tools (some are specific to the transmission, others are just standard measuring tools), attention to detail, and making sure all the tolerances are correct (they're adjusted via lots of extra washers/spacers/shims.)
Granted it is one of the more complex mechanical jobs aside from a full engine rebuild, but those aren't very hard either. If you're ever curious about it and want to learn- sign up for an appropriate class at the local tech school to get basic good practices down. Then, start with old car bought off the classifieds for which you can find factory manuals/rebuild guides for. Set aside a fair bit of cash for the various tools you'll need, although some can be rented.
All this has me thinking, "gee, wouldn't it be nice if there was a 'Law for Citizens' class at the local community college?"
Please help metamoderate.
Is this one of those Deja vu experiments?
Using the indented blockquotes looks much easier on the eyes than the italics. Thanks for the change.
The filesystem is the package manager
Previous backslash articles have been on stories that generated a high volume of comments the day before. So if that has been the previous pattern, then why, out of all the articles from yesterday, was this one chosen for a backslash? Sure the origional story generated a generous 444 comments, but it certainly wasn't the largest one from yesterday. Why not a more exciting story like "Air Marshals Place Innocents on Secret Watch List" which has 526 comments or (what whould have been my choice for a backslash) the story "Proposal to Update the Electoral College" which has a whopping 838 comments?
So is there a method behind this madness, or is it just plain madness?
0*0
00*
***
I love these guys, there almost as cool as SCO. ... [tap][tap]... pay attention, you can get protection under copywrite - you are selling the data on the disc as a collective work, or you can be selling a liscense for the work on the disk. You don't get to play both games - if for no other reason, the IRS demands it be one or the other.
When you get around the 'it's not copywrite, it's a liscense' issue, they turn around and go back to quoting it's a copywrite violation.
Hello
Hmm, guess that's one way for us to be certain whether we buy a copywriten work or the liscence to view it. We can check the IRS filings of the companies that are members of the **AA. The sales have to be listed as goods or liscenses, and we know you never, ever, ever lie to the IRS.
If you own your copy, how does downloading another copy in some other format differ from other means of exercising fair use rights? The only difference I can see is that the user didn't actually do the work of transcoding the data. I am assuming the copy of the movie is an AVI or some other non-DVD bit-image format.
I suspect thatt the people who have criticized Hogan's claim that he already owned the DVD have missed his point. He probably didn't intend that as an argument that he had no reason to download it. Rather, he was probably referring to the idea that it is legal to download a copy of something that you have legally purchased because it is equivalent to making a backup copy or shifting to another medium.
Perhaps "Aych tea tea pea colon slash slash slash dot dot org". You lost the slash from slashdot and does anyone ever read out that last slash, or is that the missing third from a normal editing error??
--- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
Is this what DejaVu is like?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I predict the MPAA dominate the entire court case and about to win until Hogan's hand is raised for the third time and just before it falls he'll suddenly find a new leash of evidence, bounce the MPAA of the ropes, kick them in the face then leg drop them, yet again winning another court case.
To be fair, neither of these analogies are accurate.
1.With the proper tools and a good manual, any literate able bodied person can rebuild a tranny. Follow the instructions and it's no problem.
2.Performing a root canal on yourself presents several physical challanges not at all related to the root canal. If you changed this one to performing a root canal on someone else, it would be accurate. With the basic knowledge, you would know what to do, but with out the experience, practice, and muscle memory, it would be incredibly difficult to do well.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Go SMASH 'em Shawn!
"They just have to convince a judge that you probably were, rather than proving it."
I wonder how long until they order a survey carried out, to show that over 50% of some demographic is breaking the law... In theory they could sue all of them - would annoy a lot of people, but would that really change anything?
http://objection.4camp.net/go.php?n=381946
See, I said they made it hard to spell out the URL, and then proved it... Yeah...
No, I just can't count and left it out. As for the closing slash, no one would bother today, but at the start of the "internet boom" before people really understood the web and URLs, people would include it. Generally they'd just be reading off a script that included the full URL with the closing slash - so they'd say it, because it was on the paper.
It didn't take long for people to shorten it down to just the domain name, but I still remember radio ads where the spokesperson would read out the entire URL. "Log on to our website at http://www.example.com/ for more information!"
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Whoever he is, there's no way he can beat the Hulkster! Granted, Hogan is a little older these days.
Thanks you to the tons of folks who have the urge to see Richard Stallman, Larry Lessig and others come down hard on the MPAA, RIAA and the US Government for their role in putting technology corporate profit and control over innovation and invention. It is exciting to know that we can get our documentary out there without Hollywood!
http://alternativefreedom.org/
(also features Danger Mouse of Gnarls Barkley!)
Am I the only person who read that title as MPAA vs. (Hulk) Hogan (hides) :|
Why can't the USA take up a loser pays legal system - in countries where such a system exists, the incidence if frivolous lawsuits are nowhere near the level they are in the USA.
If you have to pay the other party's court costs if you lose, then there's a lot more incentive to make sure that you're taking them to court over something solid, not just on a hunch. These kinds of RIAA lawsuits would get VERY expensive if they had to pay all legal costs every time they lost, and people would be more inclined to let it go to court, rather than settling as it's a cheaper option.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
the courts, the internet, media, movies, privacy, the almighty buck, backslash...
Geez! Overkill on the categorization much?
I opened up the story and see the category icons taking up more screen real estate than the text body. </whine>
We all know who's really going to win: whoever has better connections. In this case, it's obvious that the MPAA will prevail.
They're everywhere! Argh! *boom*
Rhapsody in Numbers
This article serves no purpose and is totally a flamebait!
As seen here, there is a famed wrestling fan site which is well known for the vast quantities of spyware that it unleashes on an unsuspecting user. the guy writing the article decided to deliberately infect a virtual machine set up especially for the purpose:
By clicking "Yes" to the security warning, one spyware was installed. That first spyware downloaded and installed three other spywares. Those installed three new spywares each. Spyware was procreating on my computer at a geometric rate!
Six new toolbars showed up in Internet Explorer. Something deleted the Google Toolbar entirely. Three new icons appeared in the system tray. Three internet shortcuts appeared on the desktop and well over a hundred more showed up in my "Favorites" folder. Dozens of processes were loaded into memory. 200 new files appeared on the hard drive as well as over 400 new registry entries. And pop-ups were appearing at a rate of five per minute.
Within half an hour, my virtual computer was as infested with malware as anything I have ever seen at the message board.
I believe my favorite was the AdDestroyer program. That one sat in my system tray popping up ad windows, then declaring that "Your trial has expired. Click here to block pop-ups like that one.". It made a very obnoxious squealing noise every time it did it.
Verrry nice. I believe the Federal Trade Commission sued a company last year for doing that.
Once I had decided that all the spyware that was going to be installed was installed, I set about trying to remove it all.
Oh boy.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Quick, patent that business model!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
see saw the movie - then lived it
Are they suing actual pirates "99%" of the time because they're lucky, or because the large majority of our society have downloaded at least one "pirated" movie/song?
That is its own punishment!
Suing for this sees unsportsman-like. Kicking a fellow, when he's down, wot?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
What'chu gonna do when the MPAA runs wild on you, brotha?!
Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
Lemmee guess.....if Shawn won the case, would we have to call his lawyers "Hogan's Heroes" ??????
I dunno. That occurred to me, too - though it could as easily be Paul Hogan.
Judge: Will the defendant please identify exhibit A?
Hogan: Tha's moy Subaru Ew'bek: the woold's first spo't utelety weggin!
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Pro se and per se mean two different things. If you represent yourself in court, that's pro se. Per se is a completely different legal term. E.G. something might be libel per se, if it was in and of itself libel, regardless of anything like a malicious intent to libel a person or reckless disregard for the truth of your claims (certain statutes may define what, by definition, constitutes libel, so saying "___ has AIDs" might be libel per se if there's a statute says that claiming someone has a loathsome disease is libel per se).
That said, Hogan is obviously not stupid: he has lawyers. Hopefully, he'll consult with them about how best to embarass the MPAA in court and how best to set some kind of precident that logfiles and screenshots, in and of themselves, are trivially fakeable, alterable and no better than electronic hearsay unless they're accompanied by stronger supporting facts.
He says he didn't download it. See the dot after the prior sentence? PERIOD.
Go get 'em Hogan - and make sure this goes to court. Don't let those SOBs harass you, or anyone else, with their harrassment suits.
The fact they don't even want a trial tells you this isn't a legal issue for them. It is an extortion issue.
Which is a good point... BT while awesome is also still rather slow and the quality of movies coming off it are low. So if you have the DVD there is only one reason you would download - you have restrictive DRM on your DVD that is causing you trouble (I have had this problem twice now...F$@#$ MPAA!) - which for him really wouldn't be a problem since he isn't in some stuffed up region with the spanish. So yeah burn MPAA burn.
I ate your fish.
If I recall right there already has been a fair use case... Here is EFF's webpage on Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at least one of these cases deals with fair use, MGM v. 321 Studios.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Unfortunately 99% of MPAA lawsuits are valid because people are, in fact, breaking copyright laws and getting stuff for free.
Do you have any evidence 99% of the people are guilty? Or are you implying that if someone is charged with something then they must be guilty of something?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I hear a lot of "GO GET HIM!" "YOU GO MAN!" but I haven't seen any evidence that he's innocent. This is like supporting a speeder at a district court "Awsome man! Fight the system!" When they were caught on 4 different radar guns simultaneously.
Sure, they might be shooting blanks with alot OF people. Devasting people $ wise. People have mentioned punishmen doesnt fit the crime. But meny people are taking note. if this CEO got sued, when is my "lucky" streak going to end? Even if they loose this case (if it ever goes to trial) ALOT of people will take notice to "I dont have the money to fight this", so they will back off on the torrents. Myself, I own TONS of dvds, and i also downloaded a copy of the same movie, to save time, did i break the law? Yes, as 300+ other people recieved my packets. Do all these lawsuits make me think twice? Ofcourse. So what ever they loose in these lawsuits, they have gained in scare tacticts. Meny of us DONT have the resources to fight the **AA empire.
And ofcourse they is 2 sides to every story, I hate being devils advocate here, but, they had to get your IP from somewhere. (and if they also used the torrent client, did they upload also?) The question is was your IP obtained legally, and was that really your IP at that time?
Being on a Fat pipe with a static IP it leaves little room for agruement.
What am i really trying to say?
You can take your "Fare Use" theory and throw it out the window, either way, you will loose, and it will cost you alot of money to prove your point, in the end, they win.
Thats just my 2 cents, that the **AA's cant have.
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
Completly out of topic, i know.
.. stop ... stop being SO STUBORNED !
When i see MPAA & RIAA & co. stuff all the time on the web
i know why i can't do nothing but hate US for all the excess
involved in everything that pours out of the lawyers in this
i-have-lost-my-common-sense-and-grasp-of-reality paranoïd country.
Please people, i really hope that one day you'll get your feet
back on the ground and stop
Ah, i forgot. "In god we trust" *sigh*
Flame me to hell.
Just to point out, in a legal case they not only use the IP address leased at that time by your modem/router, but also your MAC address(or physical address, though this can be spoofed) and the node you are connecting thru in the ISP's network. If(when) they subpoena your ISP's logs, it will show this information and be very, very difficult to disprove. ISP's tend to keep very thorough track of these things for billing purposes :)
This space intentionally left blank
"less that 99%"? "still is not more that"? It's "than"! #$@$%!
:/
My brain hurts now.
Nobody is saying that anyone is is "putting technology profits over innovation". There will not be many more "cool products" or "technology profits" if the law continues to change in which it has since the DMCA.
The "**AA's" as you like to call them, are guilty of controlling the law to suit their prehistoric business models.
Down with the **AA's! Be Free!
Just to let you know that selected litigation documents in Shawn Hogan's case will be made available online here
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful